(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic responses to new product designs"

THE INFLUENCE OF UNITY AND PROTOTYPICALITY ON 
AESTHETIC RESPONSES TO NEW PRODUCT DESIGNS 



By 
ROBERT W. VERYZER, JR. 



A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL 

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT 

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF 

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 

1993 



Copyright 1993 

by 

Robert W. Veryzer, Jr. 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

A number of people deserve credit for their role in helping me to 
accomplish the goal of finishing this dissertation. First and foremost is 
Dr. J. Wesley Hutchinson, the chairman of my committee, to whom I am 
extremely grateful. The time and effort that he has contributed to this 
endeavor are greatly appreciated. This work would not have been possible 
without his benevolent guidance. 

I am very grateful to Dr. Richard Lutz, Dr. Chris Janiszewski, and 
Dr. David Mick for their- guidance in refining my ideas and for the 
encouragement that they have given me. I would also like to thank 
Dr. John Lynch, Jr. for his guidance on the statistical analyses and 
Dr. Jonathan Hamilton for contributing an economist's point of view. 

I am indebted to my parents, Robert and Marion Veryzer, for their love 
and support, and for always being there when I need them. 

Finally, I would like to thank my brother David who has been a 
tremendous source of inspiration to me. 



m 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii 

ABSTRACT vi 

CHAPTERS 

I INTRODUCTION 1 

II CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND ON THE 
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE AESTHETIC 
RESPONSES 6 

Introduction 6 

Factors Affecting Aesthetic Responses 9 

Visual Organization Principles 9 

Prototypicality 14 

Derived Responses 21 

III EXPERIMENT 1 28 

Overview 28 

Stimuli 28 

Experimental Design 39 

Experimental Procedure 40 

Results and Discussion 41 

Siunmary 81 

IV EXPERIMENT 2 84 

Overview 84 

Experimental Design 84 

Experimental Procedure 86 

Results and Discussion 87 

Summary 101 

V EXPERIMENT 3 104 

Overview 104 

Stimulus Materials 105 

Experimental Design 106 



IV 



Experimental Procedure 108 

Results and Discussion 108 

Summary 114 

VI GENERAL DISCUSSION 116 

APPENDICES 

A LIST OF PRODUCTS EXPLORED FOR USE AS 

STIMULI 127 

B STIMULUS SETS 129 

C DIAGRAM OF EXPERIMENT 1 157 

D DIAGRAM OF EXPERIMENT 2 159 

E STRONG AND WEAK PRODUCT DESCRIPTIONS 161 

REFERENCE LIST 164 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 171 



Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School 

of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the 

Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 



THE INFLUENCE OF UNITY AND PROTOTYPICALITY ON 
AESTHETIC RESPONSES TO NEW PRODUCT DESIGNS 

By 

Robert W. Veryzer, Jr. 

August 1993 

Chairman: Dr. J. Wesley Hutchinson 
Major Department: Marketing 

This dissertation investigates the influence of the aesthetic aspects of 
product appearance on consumers' product preferences and product 
evaluations. Two factors, unity and protot5rpicality, are identified and 
discussed as being the principal factors that influence consumers' aesthetic 
responses to product designs. The research provides a basis for a theory of 
consumer aesthetics and has implications for new product development, 
product quality, and marketing strategy. 

The dissertation postulates that consumers' responses to product designs 
are influenced by the design's consistency with the visual organization 
principle of unity (i. e., a congruity axnong the elements of a design) and its 
level of prototypicality (i. e., familiarity; shared features with the category 



VI 



schema). Furthermore, it is suggested that aesthetic responses influence 
consumers' attitudes toward products, perceptions of product quality, and price 
expectations. 

Three experiments are conducted in order to examine the role of unity 
and prototjrpicality in influencing aesthetic responses and product perceptions. 
The first study examines the relationship between the two factors (i. e., unity 
and prototypicality) and consumers' responses to product designs. This study 
provides evidence that there is a positive effect of unity on aesthetic response 
and that the favorable aesthetic response generated by consistency with the 
unity principle also influences "non-aesthetic" product perceptions. The study 
also finds that the unity factor provides a better explanation of aesthetic 
response than does prototypicality. 

The second and third experiments examine whether or not the context 
of the evaluation situation (i. e., presence of other similar products, written 
product descriptions) moderates the influence of unity. These studies find that 
even though the evaluation context can reduce the magnitude of the unity 
effect, the unity effect is quite robust and is pervasive. 

Taken together, the results of the three experiments indicate that the 
unity visual organization principle is a very important design factor and that 
aesthetic responses can have a significant impact on consumers' responses to 
product designs. The results highlight the relationship between product 
aesthetics (i. e., design) and consumer behavior. 



Vll 



CHAPTER I 
INTRODUCTION 



There is a growing recognition that product design, and particularly 
aesthetic aspects of product design, is emerging as a key marketing element 
(Kotler and Rath 1984). Throughout the 1980s companies updated their 
manufacturing methods, quality control, distribution networks, customer 
service, and labor/management relations in order to compete with other foreign 
and domestic manufacturers. Today, as more and more manufacturers are 
able to achieve similar levels of price, quahty, reliabihty, and technology, 
product appearance is increasingly being acknowledged as the major difference 
around which consumers can exercise a choice (Oakley 1990, p. 4). 

Product design, or "competitive aesthetics" as it has been called (Reed 
1990), is gaining recognition as a strategic activity that companies can use to 
gain a sustainable competitive advantage (Kotler and Rath 1984; Whitney 
1988). It is being used for every sort of product from Apple computers to La 
Croix sparkling water cans. As Bruce Nussbaum pointed out in Business 
Week (June 17, 1991, p. 62): "Recently, business has grown increasingly aware 
that design sells. U. S. Companies, in particular, are rediscovering that good 
design translates into quality products, greater market share, and heftier 
profits." Although the technical aspects of products remain vitally important, 



2 

more and more manufacturers of all kinds of products are having to come to 

terms with the reality that product appearance is often the major factor 
influencing (consciously or unconsciously) what people buy and how much they 
are willing to pay (Oakley 1990, p. 5). 

The influence of aesthetic factors on product preferences and perceptions 
is an important but often neglected area of study in consumer research. The 
design of products inherently involves aesthetics. The aesthetic aspects of a 
product give rise to the registering of affect or pleasure due to the conscious 
or unconscious influences of the characteristics of the product (Holbrook and 
Zirlin 1985). The response arising from the interaction between the aesthetic 
aspects of an object and the perceiver of the object has been termed the 
"aesthetic response" (Olson 1981). There is a growing recognition among 
marketing researchers that aesthetic responses can significantly affect 
consumer behavior and thus aesthetics is gaining recognition as an important 
marketing variable (Kotler and Rath 1984; Wallendorf 1980). The influence 
of aesthetics is increasingly being acknowledged as an important part of new 
product development (Whitney 1988), marketing strategy (Kotler and Rath 
1984), product quality (Garvin 1984; Zeithaml 1988), product differentiation 
(Dickson and Ginter 1987), and competitive advantage (Holt 1985; Kotler and 
Rath 1984). 

Despite the growing awareness of the significant influence that the 
aesthetic aspects of products can have on product preferences and perceptions, 



3 

surprisingly little in the way of design/aesthetic theory has been offered that 

aids in our understanding of how aesthetic responses are formed (Berlyne 
1974, p. 5; Gorski 1987, p. 68; Holbrook and Zirlin 1985; Pye 1978, p. 88). 
Even though disciphnes concerned with basic research such as experimental 
aesthetics remain dormant or in a "protracted infancy" (Berlyne 1971), other 
disciphnes such as industrial (product) design look to them to address the lack 
of design theory (Gorski 1987, p. 68). The end result is that managers 
continue to exhibit much "unease" when it comes to making decisions about 
design and managing design projects (Oakley 1990, p. 7). This is particularly 
problematic for managers charged with transferring new technology out of the 
laboratory and into the market. It is at this point that the appearance of a 
product plays a crucial role in communicating the products identity and use to 
consumers. 

Although consumer research seems to be ideally suited for the study of 
aesthetic response due to its unique combination of scientific research methods 
and its tangible research context (i. e., consumer product focus), consumer 
researchers have taken only tentative steps toward exploring aesthetics and 
its relationship to consumers' behavior. Much of this work has been concerned 
with debating the definition and scope of consumer aesthetics rather than 
examining the nature and influence of aesthetics and aesthetic responses 
(Holbrook and ZirHn 1985). Thus, aesthetic research has proceeded without 
the benefit of a conceptual foundation (Holbrook and Zirlin 1985; Olson 1981). 



4 
Consumer researchers have not developed one, and they have not found one 

in any of the other disciphnes to adopt as a starting point for building 
aesthetic theory. 

This dissertation attempts to address this void in aesthetic theory by 
examining the influence of the aesthetic aspects of product appearance on 
consumers' product preferences and perceptions. This research represents 
important steps toward understanding the imphcations of aesthetics and 
product design for consimier research and the formulation of a theory of 
consumer aesthetics. 

In Chapter II the two principal factors, unity and prototypicality, that 
influence consiuners' aesthetic responses to a product's design are discussed 
and the supporting research is reviewed. Several hypotheses are developed 
that involve the relationship of the factors to aesthetic and derived responses. 

Chapters III and IV each present the method and results of an 
experiment designed to investigate the influence of the unity and 
prototypicality factors on aesthetic and derived responses. Chapter III also 
includes a detailed discussion of how the stimuli employed in all of the 
experiments were developed. 

Chapter V presents the method and results of an experiment that 
focuses on derived responses. 

Chapter VI provides a general discussion of the findings and 
imphcations of these results for research that examines the influence of 



5 
product aesthetics on consumer behavior. The managerial imphcations of 
these findings are also discussed. 



CHAPTF'T? TT 
CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND ON THE FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE 

AESTHETIC RESPONSES 



Introduction 
Even though there is a growing awareness of the important role that 
aesthetics play in influencing product preferences, our understanding of 
aesthetic responses is extremely limited. Our primitive understanding of 
aesthetic response phenomena may be due to the highly fragmented approach 
that has characterized its study. Aesthetics have been studied in a number of 
fields including philosophy, art history, psychology, experimental aesthetics, 
industrial design, and more recently consumer behavior. Each field has 
contributed to our comprehension of aesthetics and yet, Httle progress has been 
made in understanding the specifics of aesthetic response (Berkowitz 1987; 
Wohlwill 1981). Within the many conceptualizations of aesthetic response that 
have emerged from these different fields of study, there is little agreement and 
limited insight regarding why a particular object is perceived as pleasurable 
or beautiful while another is viewed as unattractive. The question concerning 
what makes an object aesthetically pleasing, regardless of whether it is a 
painting or a portable stereo, has received diverse and typically vague answers 
from the disciplines that have studied it. While a lack of convergence is not 



7 
uncommon in interdisciplinary research, the different orientations of the 
disciphnes that are or have been concerned with aesthetic phenomena and the 
vagueness of the theories that have been offered to explain aesthetic responses 
have severely inhibited progress toward gaining an understanding of aesthetic 
responses. 

Some aesthetic response theories, which seem to view aesthetic response 
as idiosyncratic, maintain that their are no laws or principles of aesthetics 
(Mothersill 1989), while others suggest that inner tendencies of the visual 
system result in laws that govern perception and thereby influence aesthetic 
response (Katz 1950; Kofflia 1935). There are aesthetic theories that point to 
fashion trends or the influence of culture as the determinant of systematic 
aesthetic responses for all classes of products (Pleydell-Pearce 1970; Sproles 
1981). There are views of aesthetic response that would suggest that the 
consumer's preference for a specific product was determined by a desire for 
unity in variety (Auld 1981; Berlyne 1971; Lauer 1979). Other views maintain 
that preference is related to prototypicahty (Loken and Ward 1990; Nedungadi 
and Hutchinson 1985). There are also those that periodically suggest that the 
term "aesthetic response" apphes only to works of art (Holbrook 1981), only to 
be contradicted by those who maintain that all objects have an aesthetic 
component (Berlyne 1974; Wallendorf 1980). Even the artists and product 
designers who determine the forms of the objects seem to have trouble 
agreeing on the basics of design (Lauer 1979) and as yet "have not formulated 



8 
what they know" (Pye 1978, p. 11). In fact, the well worn maxim that "form 

follows function" has even been challenged (Lewalski 1988; Pye 1978). 
Interestingly enough, designers are beginning to look to the disciplines of 
experimental psychology and consumer behavior in order to understand the 
cognitive condition of design (Zaff 1987). 

The lack of understanding concerning what makes an object 
aesthetically pleasing is particularly evident in the area of new product 
development. The issue of aesthetic response and the factors that influence it 
are frequently overlooked in many discussions of the new product development 
process. Much of the work in this area seems to sidestep these considerations 
by either ignoring the role of industrial design (i. e., the process of shaping or 
giving form to goods that are to be mass produced) in the new product 
development process or subsuming the industrial design function under the 
engineering function (e. g., Gruenwald 1985; Urban and Hauser 1993). In 
either case, the result is that the role of product appearance in the success of 
a new product is not expHcitly acknowledged or addressed. Given the 
increasing importance of product aesthetics this omission is a rather serious 
deficiency. Fortunately, the distinct role of industrial design and its 
relationship to the engineering and marketing functions is beginning to receive 
the attention that it merits (e. g., Lorenz 1986). However, most of the work 
that addresses the role of industrial design in the new product development 



9 

process stops short of identifying and investigating the factors that influence 

aesthetic responses to products. 

Factors Affecting Aesthetic Response 
Aesthetic response is a complex phenomenon that is not yet well 
understood. As with any complex phenomenon it is likely to involve a number 
of factors; however, prior research seems to suggest that there are two 
principal factors: the visual organization principle of unity and prototypicality, 
that may significantly influence aesthetic responses. Some of the significant 
prior research that suggests that these factors may play an important role in 
influencing aesthetic responses will now be reviewed. The influence of 
aesthetics/aesthetic response on non-aesthetic perceptions (i. e., derived 
responses) will also be discussed. 

Visual Organization Principles 
The greatest void in aesthetic theory and research (and the greatest 
opportunity) concerns the identification of specific factors that systematically 
influence aesthetic responses. Although very general "rules" or "principles" 
have sometimes been offered (e. g., "unity in variety" — Hutcheson 1725), the 
rules are usually vague and unspecified. Even though aestheticians seem to 
rely on principles such as "unity" and "balance" and aesthetics research has 
frequently employed scales that attempt to measure dimensions such as 



10 

disorderly/orderly, weak/powerful, somber^right, etc. as they pertain to 

aesthetic stimuli (e. g., paintings), the specific contributions of these 
dimensions to aesthetic response are not yet well understood. Although 
principles such as "unity" and "balance" may be understood in terms of visual 
organization principles such as the Gestalt laws of perception (Lewalski 1988; 
Pickford 1972, p. 31), no reported research has been found that relates Gestalt 
laws to general rules regarding aesthetic responses (see Veryzer 1993 for an 
exception). 

Unity 

Design Principles such as "unity" describe perceived spatial relations 
between the parts of a visual display. The design principle of unity refers to 
a congrmty among the elements of a design such that they look as though they 
belong together or as though there is some visual connection beyond mere 
chance that has caused them to come together (Lauer 1979). The tendency to 
perceive groupings of constitutive elements in certain ways or as integrated 
entities is an important aspect of perception. These tendencies are described 
by Gestalt laws (Koffka 1935) and design principles (Ching 1979; Lauer 1979). 
Although design principles are more general than the Gestalt laws of 
perception, the two sets of rules of perception are related and in some 
instances a set of Gestalt laws may be used to describe a design principle. For 
example, the Gestalt laws of proximity (i. e., elements that are closest to each 



11 

other tend to form groups), similarity (i. e., elements that are similar tend to 
form groups), and common destiny (i. e., parts of a figure that have a common 
destiny tend to form units) may be viewed as ways to achieve unity (Katz 1950; 
Lauer 1979). According to the Gestalt psychologists beauty is dependent on 
the degree to which an object displays relations consistent with the Gestalt 
laws of organization. Koffka (1935) clearly suggested this when he discussed 
how violations of such laws as "good continuation" and "good shape" are not 
only felt as violations, they conflict with our feeling of "fit" and "hurt our sense 
of beauty" (Koffka 1935, p. 175). 

Although the visual organization principle of unity would seem to be a 
likely factor in influencing aesthetic responses, there is little in the way of 
research that relates visual organization principles (e.g., design principles, 
Gestalt laws) such as unity to aesthetic responses. There is, however, a 
limited amount of research that indicates that there are general guidehnes or 
principles for combining visual elements in order to maximize aesthetic 
responses. A study by Bell, Holbrook, and Solomon (1991), which examined 
the impact of gestalt-Kke ensemble effects and the influence of personahty 
factors on product evaluations, provides support for the view that unity may 
systematically influence aesthetic responses. In their study, subjects were 
asked to look at one of thirty-two color photographs containing various 
combinations of traditional and contemporary styles of five types of living-room 
furniture-specifically, a chair, a table, a piece of sculpture, a floor lamp, and 



12 
a framed picture (each photograph contained all five types of living-room 

furniture but differed with respect to the mix of traditional and contemporary 
styles). Subjects rated the furniture in the randomly assigned photo in terms 
of perceived unity (i. e., a visual connection among elements that suggests that 
something beyond mere chance has caused them to come together), aesthetic 
response, social impression, general liking, and intention to own. Subjects also 
provided ratings on a mmiber of items which measured personality and 
motivation variables. Bell et al. (1991), found that aesthetic response did, in 
fact, depend on perceived unity (R^ = .05, p < .001) and that perceived unity 
depended on the product styles (R^ = .19, p < .001 - with significant 
contributions of chair, table, and ensemble). These findings suggest that the 
principle of unity, which was operationaUzed in this study as the mix of the 
two styles shown in each photograph, does seem to influence aesthetic 
response. 

The influence of unity has also been examined in the context of social 
information processing studies. For example, Lennon (1990) investigated the 
effects of clothing attractiveness on perceptions. In order to determine the 
degree to which people perceive others differentially as a function of the 
attractiveness of their clothing, slides of six different models in business attire, 
three wearing attractive clothing and three wearing unattractive clothing, were 
prepared. In the unattractive clothing condition, models wore garments and 
accessories that did not match either in color, style, or pattern. In the 



13 

attractive clothing condition, models wore clothing that was well matched and 

wore accessories to complement their clothing (two pilot studies were 
conducted to get a consensus regarding clothing attractiveness). Fifty-eight 
female subjects listened to a pre-recorded audio tape consisting of thirty 
suggestions relative to marketing a perfume. As a comment was heard, a slide 
of the woman purported to have made the comment was projected. Subjects 
rated the women on competence, work comfort (a measure of the extent to 
which the respondent would feel comfortable working with the woman shown), 
and sociability. A repeated measures analysis of variance revealed that there 
was a main effect for clothing attractiveness on perceived competence (F(l,58) 
= 52.14, p = .000). Models dressed in attractive clothing (M = 55.15) were 
perceived to be more competent than models dressed in unattractive clothing 
(M = 46.49). There was also a main effect for clothing attractiveness on 
perceived work comfort (F(l,58) = 24.18, p = .000). Respondents indicated that 
they would feel more comfortable working with attractively dressed models (M 
= 22.02) than with unattractively dressed models (M = 19.10). Finally, there 
was a main effect for clothing attractiveness on perceived sociability (F(l,58) 
= 5.28, p = .025). Attractively dressed models (M = 11.41) were perceived to 
be more sociable than those models who were unattractively dressed (mean = 
10.86). These results provide further support for the view that configurations 
of aesthetic elements (i. e., visual organization rules such as unity, color 



14 

harmony, repetition, etc.) can significantly influence perceptions. The 
preceding discussion suggests the following hypothesis: 

HI: Aesthetic responses are more positive for objects (products) 
exhibiting high consistency with the visual organization principle 
of unity than they are for objects (products) that are not 
consistent with this visual organization principle. 

Prototypicalitv 
Another factor that seems to exert an influence on aesthetic response is 
that of experience. Familiarity has been shown to lead to positive affect 
(Kunst- Wilson and Zajonc 1980). This would seem to suggest that more typical 
or famihar items should be better hked (Loken and Ward 1990). Typicality, 
or prototypicality, is concerned with the degree to which an object is 
representative of a category. A prototype can be defined as the central 
representation of a category, as possessing the average or mean value of the 
attributes of that category and as representing the averaged members of the 
class (Langlois and Roggman 1990; Rosch 1978). According to the prototypi- 
cality view, people respond most favorably to objects that are highly protypical 
and less favorably to objects that are less prototypical (Glass and Holyoak 
1986, p. 170; Langlois and Roggman 1990). The prototypicality explanation of 
preference maintains that more prototypical examples tend to be better liked 
(Loken and Ward 1990; Nedungadi and Hutchinson 1985). Although prototypi- 



15 
cality theories were not developed to specifically address aesthetic issues, the 
absence of a theory of aesthetic response has led consumer researchers as well 
as others to rely on prototypicality as a default theory for explaining aesthetic 
response. 

A number of explanations have been suggested for the relationship 
between prototypicality and preference. One explanation for the relationship 
between prototypicality and preference/attitude suggests that more prototypical 
items are more familiar and therefore better liked. Familiarity refers to either 
an item's meaningfulness (i. e., perceived knowledge about an item) or the 
frequency of exposure to the item (Loken and Ward 1990). Another 
explanation suggests that more prototypical category members are preferred 
because they have more valued attributes. This explanation does not hold that 
prototypically per se leads to product preference, but rather maintains that as 
product categories evolve one or a few products tend to become market-share 
leaders because they have attributes widely desired by consumers who buy the 
product. Competitive brands are designed to appeal to the same segment(s) 
of consumers so they are similar in many ways to market leaders (Loken and 
Ward 1990). It has also been suggested that the link between prototypicality 
and preference may in part be due to the information theory notion of 
redundancy in that prototypes appear to be just those members of a category 
that most reflect the "redundancy structure" of the category as a whole (Rosch 
1978, p. 37). The preceding discussion suggests the following hypothesis: 



16 

H2: Objects (products) that are more prototypical (i. e., have 

more shared features with the category schema) will receive more 
favorable aesthetic responses than objects that are less 
prototypical (i. e., fewer shared feattires with the category 
schema). 

Although prototypicality/familiarity seems to provide a satisfactory 
explanation of aesthetic response in some cases (e. g., Kunst- Wilson and Zajonc 
1980; Loken and Ward 1990), such an explanation does not seem adequate in 
others (e. g., Meyers-Levy and Tybout 1989). In fact, in some cases it is the 
converse of prototypicality (i. e., novelty, distinctiveness) that seems to account 
for positive aesthetic response (Woll and Graesser 1982). Some research that 
examined novelty and complexity may provide insight into this apparent 
inconsistency. In a study that examined novelty ratings of simple and complex 
shapes, Eisenman (1968) found that more complex polygons (i. e., those with 
more sides) were rated as being more novel. In a related study, Berlyne (1970) 
examined the effect of repeated presentation on hedonic value for simple and 
complex (i. e., novel) patterns. Berlyne had subjects rate two simple and two 
complex patterns six times on a 7-point pleasingness scale. Between 
consecutive tests the subjects saw each of the patterns eight times without 
having to record a judgement. The results confirmed that ratings of complex 
(i. e., novel) patterns rose and then fell after reaching a maximum at the third 
test. Ratings of the simple (i. e., less novel) patterns, which were initially 



17 
higher than those for the more complex (novel) patterns, fell throughout the 

tests until they finally flattened out (see Figure II - 1). This would seem to 

explain why (and roughly when) prototypicality will be liked better in some 

cases and novelty will be better liked in others. 

Mandler (1982) has theorized that the level of congruity between a 
product and a more general product category schema may influence the nature 
of information processing and thus product evaluations. Products that are 
moderately incongruent with their associated category schemas are said to 
stimulate processing that leads to a more favorable evaluation relative to 
products that are either congruent or extremely incongruent with the category 
schema. Mandler suggests that moderate incongruities are those that can be 
successfully and readily resolved by the processor. 

Meyers-Levy and Tybout (1989) conducted a series of experiments to test 
Mandler's schema (in)congruity hypothesis. The general method, which was 
modified slightly over the course of the three studies that were conducted, 
consisted of presenting subjects with descriptions and samples of beverage/soft 
drink products and having them evaluate the products along dimensions such 
as appeal, taste, quality, interest in trial, etc. In their design, schema 
congruity and schema incongruity were manipulated by varying a single 
attribute in the product description (high preservatives vs. all natural 
ingredients) so as to alter the structural and descriptive congruence of the 
product description with the schema activated by the category label (beverage 



18 



Mean 

Pleasingness 

Rating 



46 k 

45 
44 
43 

42 k 

41 

40 

39 

38 

37 

ot 




^ C 



I 



3 4 

Tests 



Mean pleasingness ratings for complex (C) and simple (S) patterns in 
successive test. Consecutive tests were separated by eight presentations 
of each pattern. (Source: Berlyne 1970) 



FIGURE II - 1 
BERLYNE'S EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 



19 

vs. soft drink) that was specified in the first sentence of the product description 

(e. g., subjects were told that they were going to be evaluating either a new 
"beverage" or a new "soft drink" and later they were told that the product had 
either "high preservatives" or had "all natural ingredients"). Across their three 
experiments Meyers-Levy and Tybout found support for Handler's view that 
the process of responding to levels of schema congruity influences evaluations, 
and that moderate schema incongruity enhances evaluations. Moderate 
schema incongruity led to more favorable evaluations than either schema 
congruity or extreme schema incongruity. This discussion suggests the 
following hypotheses: 

H3: Moderate schema incongruity (i. e., distinctiveness, novelty) 
leads to a more favorable aesthetic response than does complete 
congruity between a product and its product class (i. e., 
prototypicality). 

H4: Moderate schema incongruity leads to more favorable 
aesthetic responses than does extreme schema incongruity. 

It is also possible that people may prefer more novel products due to 
variety seeking (Holbrook and Hirschman 1982) or perhaps because of a 
product's salience relative to other products (Loken and Ward 1990; Woll and 
Graesser 1982). 



20 

H5: Objects (products) that are more novel (i. e., atypical) will 

receive more favorable aesthetic response ratings than objects 
that are less novel (i. e., more protot3rpical). 

These hypotheses would predict that a product that exhibits a singular 
change from the category prototype should receive more positive aesthetic 
ratings than either the category prototype or a product that exhibits multiple 
changes (i. e., extreme schema incongruity). While this result might be 
expected if familiarity is entirely a function of memory, it is possible that the 
unity design factor may influence feehngs of "perceived famiharity." In an 
instance where two attributes of a stimulus were altered such that the 
stimulus was no longer prototypical but it did exhibit unity, the relational 
similarity (i. e., unity) to the category prototype may generate a sense of 
"perceived" famiharity (Goldstone, Medin, and Gentner 1991). This discussion 
suggests the following hypothesis: 

H6: Consistency with the visual organization principle of unity 
is positively related to perceived familiarity. 

In addition to the hypotheses that have already been presented 
concerning the influence of specific factors on aesthetic response, there are 
several other important hypotheses concerning the influence of the aesthetic 
responses that are fostered by these factors. These hypotheses are developed 
and presented in the section that follows. 



21 

Derived Responses 

Attitude 

Aesthetic responses seem to influence derived responses (i. e., non- 
aesthetic evaluations) although their influence is often attributed to other 
factors (e. g., Berkowitz 1987). One area that seems to be influenced by 
aesthetic responses is that of attitude. Bell et al. (1991) have suggested that 
aesthetic responses are key determinants of general liking. In their study, 
which was described earher, they found evidence that general liking was 
influenced by aesthetic response (recall that aesthetic response in their study 
was influenced by perceived unity which was manipulated by means of the 
ensemble that was depicted). 

In general, "attitudes" may be conceptualized as evaluative judgements. 
The term is usually used to refer to an individual's disposition to respond 
favorably or unfavorably to an object, person, institution, or event, or to any 
other discriminable aspect of an individual's world (Ajzen 1989, p. 241). Ajzen 
(1989) has noted that affective reactions may feed into the overall evaluative 
response to an attitude object and thus may be at least partly responsible for 
the evaluative direction and intensity of a person's behefs. 

The influence of affect due to aesthetic factors (i. e., happy or angry 
looking faces, taste, smell) on attitude formation and change was examined in 
a study by Edwards (1990). In two experiments, Edwards examined the 
hypotheses that the sequence of affect and cognition in an attitude's formation 



22 

is an important determinant of its subsequent resistance to affective and 

cognitive means of persuasion. Affect-based and cognition-based attitudes were 
induced and subsequently challenged by either affective or cognitive means of 
persuasion. The procedure used to create the two types of attitudes and the 
means of persuasion involved varying the sequence of affect and cognition 
while holding the content of communications constant. Edwards found that 
affect-based attitudes exhibited more change under affective means of 
persuasion than under cognitive means of persuasion. Cognition-based 
attitudes, on the other hand, exhibited equal change under both forms of 
persuasion. In addition, it was found that affect-based attitudes were 
expressed with greater confidence than their cognition-based counterparts. 
These findings demonstrate that aesthetic responses can play an important 
role in determining attitudes. 

H7: Attitudes (e. g., general liking) towards products are more 
favorable for products receiving more positive aesthetic ratings 
than for products receiving less positive aesthetic ratings. 

Perceived Quality 

Another important area where aesthetic responses seem to play an 
important role in influencing non-aesthetic evaluations is that of product 
quahty. Garvin (1984) has identified aesthetics as one of the eight dimensions 
of quality. Zeithaml (1988) has suggested that "intrinsic cues," which involve 



23 

the physical composition of the product (e. g., texture, color, flavor, etc.), are 

very important in signaling perceived quality to the consumer. In a study by 
Berkowitz (1987), consumers seemed to make unconscious inferences 
concerning freshness, taste, and quality based on the shapes of the products. 
Berkowitz examined consumer reaction to a food product -- frozen corn on the 
cob of two shapes (full ears with squared-off ends and full ears with 
untrimmed ends), in order to determine: (1) whether the shape of the product 
would influence preference; and (2) whether preference levels would vary with 
involvement and experience with the product category. The experimental 
design involved paired comparison tests at laboratory kitchens in enclosed 
malls and sequential monadic tests in subsequent home placements. Test 
panelists included 286 female homemakers of which 184 currently purchased 
the frozen variety of com and 102 bought only the fresh variety. The findings 
showed a marked preference for the untrimmed shape. Preference ratios 
comparing preference scores for the rounded, untrimmed shape to those for the 
squared-off shape were: 

- Laboratory test -- 1.1: 1 frozen users; 2.0: 1 fresh only 

- Home placement -- 1.8: 1 frozen users; 2.2: 1 fresh only 

The results were statistically significant at the .01 level. Nearly four out of 
five consumers said the reason for their choice in the home test was better 
taste, about half said the untrimmed was a more natural product, and half 
reported better texture. Visual appeal or a more pleasing shape, per se, were 



24 

very minor motivations. Ratings on ten attributes showed the basis of 
consumer preference in a more systematic way. Overall preference ratios were 
as follows: more Kke fresh -- 3.2; more natural -- 3.1; taste/flavor -- 2.3; 
quality -- 2.3; size -- 1.7; texture -- 1.5; shape -- 1.5; and appearance -- 1.1. 
Panelists did not misperceive criteria like ease of preparation (1.0) and ease 
of holding (.8) for which shape had objectively little impact. 

Berkowitz suggests that the data seem to indicate a chain of interrelated 
inferences which stem from the shape of the product rather than a single 
direct linkage. He notes that the findings indicate that an attribute 
communicated and presumably noticed may not be considered by consimiers 
to be discriminating, but the attribute(s) that it triggers may be considered to 
be discriminating. Thus, the squared-off shape of the one test item may have 
fostered an association (or cued categorization) with processing or processed 
products while the more natural looking product may have been associated 
with freshness or "fun experiences such as summer family barbecues when 
fresh corn was served" (Berkowitz 1987, p. 559). Berkowitz' notion of 
"interrelated inferences" is similar to the concepts of perceptual categorization 
and perceptual inferences (Wilkie 1990). Wilkie (1990) has pointed out how 
these processes, which translate sensory inputs into a mental "identification" 
of a particular stimulus and develop (i. e., construct) beliefs concerning the 
stimulus based on other information such as stimulus properties, lead to 



25 

consvimer inferences and thus play a major role in directing consumer behavior 
(Wilkie 1990, p. 267). 

Evidence for the influence of aesthetic response on quality and 
ability/performance evaluations can also be found in the social perception 
literature. Landy and Sigall (1974) found significant main effects for writer 
attractiveness on evaluations of a writer and her work. Similarly, Lennon 
(1990) found a significant effect of clothing attractiveness (clothing and 
accessories that matched vs. clothing and accessories that did not match in 
color, style or pattern) on perceived competence. The findings of these studies 
suggest that the aesthetic aspect of products (i. e., objects) and the aesthetic 
responses that they give rise to may exert an influence on non-aesthetic 
aspects of products such as quality. 

H8: Quality ratings are higher for products that receive more 
positive aesthetic ratings than for products that receive less 
positive aesthetic ratings. 

Price 

The possibility that aesthetic response may influence perceived product 
quality raises some interesting questions with regard to the price-quality 
relationship. This relationship has been examined primarily in terms of price 
as cue to quality (Monroe 1973; Zeithaml 1988). Even though a positive price- 
perceived quality relationship does appear to exist, results of studies that have 



26 

examined the price-quality relationship have been somewhat mixed and the 

findings imply that price may not be the dominant cue in quaHty perception 
(Monroe 1977; Zeithaml 1988). Moreover, there seem to be cases where 
perceptions of (high) quality are formed without being diminished by (low) 
price and the quality perceptions subsequently influence price (e. g., the 
perceived quahty of Japanese automobiles despite their initial low prices). 

In cases where consumers initially do not have price information it 
seems likely that they might form impressions about a product based on non- 
price information (e. g., physical composition of the product, packaging, brand 
name, etc.) and that these impressions could influence price expectations. 
Thus, it is conceivable that the same design factors that influence aesthetic 
responses and thereby perceptions of product quality may also influence price 
expectations. 

H9: Price expectations (ratings) are higher for products that 
receive more positive aesthetic ratings than for products that 
receive less positive aesthetic ratings. 

Ultimately, the price expectations fostered by product design/aesthetics 
may play a role determining consimfiers' "price thresholds" (Monroe 1973) for 
a particular product within a category. 

If indeed unity and prototypicality systematically influence aesthetic 
responses and these, in turn, influence product preferences and product 



27 
perceptions, then one would expect these design factors to influence the ratings 

of products in accordance with (the level of) their presence (or absence) in the 
products. Aesthetic responses would be expected to be more positive for objects 
(products) exhibiting high unity than they would for objects (products) that 
were not consistent with this visual organization principle. In general, 
prototypicality would be expected to lead to more favorable aesthetic responses 
than would atypicality; however, there is some question about the nature of 
this relationship with regard to the level of prototypicality (i. e., prototypical 
or moderately atypical) that maximizes positive aesthetic response. The unity 
and t3rpicality factors would also be expected to influence non-aesthetic 
evaluations or derived responses such as attitude, perceived quality, and price 
expectations. 

In the chapters that follow a series of three experiments that examine 
the hypotheses that have been presented here are discussed. Experiments 1 
and 2 examine the influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic responses 
(i. e., HI, H2, H3, H4, and H5) and derived responses (i. e., H7, H8, and H9). 
The influence of unity on perceived familiarity is also examined (i. e., H6). 
Experiment 3 focuses on the influence of product aesthetics on the attitude and 
perceived quality derived responses (i. e., H7 and H8). In this experiment, 
additional information is presented during the evaluation task in order to 
examine whether or not the presence of the information moderates the 
influence of aesthetic response on the derived responses. 



CHAPTER III 
EXPERIMENT 1 



Overview 



The hypotheses developed in Chapter II concern the role of design 
factors in influencing aesthetic and derived responses. It was hypothesized 
that aesthetic and derived responses would be more positive for products 
exhibiting high unity than they would be for products that were not consistent 
with the unity visual organization principle. It was also suggested that 
although there is some question about the level of prototypicaHty that 
maximizes positive aesthetic response, protot5^icality, in general, would be 
expected to lead to more favorable aesthetic and derived responses. This 
chapter first discusses the stimuli and methodology that were used in 
Experiment 1 to examine these hjrpotheses. The analyses and results of 
Experiment 1 are then presented and discussed. 

Stimuli 
In order to examine the h5rpotheses concerning the influence of unity and 
prototypicaHty stimulus sets were created that allowed these factors to be 
manipulated independently. This discussion will first describe how these 



28 



29 

manipulations were accomplished. The manipulations will then be related to 

the basic design employed in the experiment. This will be followed by a 
general discussion of how the stimulus products employed in this experiment 
were selected and developed. 

Stimulus Manipulations 

The stimulus sets (i. e., design sets) were constructed by first selecting 
a prototypical product (i. e., product form) from a product category. Two 
prominent parts of the prototypical product were then selected for 
manipulation. Three variations of the prototypical product were then produced 
by altering either one or the other of the two selected features or both features. 
This produced a stimulus set consisting of four product variations (i. e., the 
original prototj^jical product variation, two variations that contained one 
altered feature, and one variation in which both features had been altered). 
The two product variations that shared one of the selected features with the 
prototypical variation (i. e., only one feature had been altered) were moderately 
atypical products. The product variation that did not share either of the two 
selected features with the prototype (i. e., both features had been altered) was 
the most at3;^pical product of the set. Thus, within the stimulus set of four 
products three levels of prototypicality were represented (i. e., prototjrpical, 
moderately atj^ical, and extremely atjq^ical). 



30 

The transformation of the two product features was done in a way that 

also manipulated each product variation's consistency with the unity visual 
organization principle. In the case of the prototypical variation the two 
selected features displayed a visual connection with each other (e. g., a 
repetition of the same shape). When one of the two selected features was 
altered it was done in a way that decreased unity (e. g., did not display a 
visual connection with other parts of the product) and therefore decreased the 
unity exhibited by the product variation. This was the case for each of the 
variations in which only one feature had been altered (i. e., the moderately 
atypical variations). In the case of the product variation where both features 
were altered unity was again achieved since the altered features displayed a 
visual connection to each other even though the features were very different 
from the features of the prototypical variation. Thus, changes in the two 
selected product features resulted in two levels of unity (unified and un- 
unified), and three levels of prototypicality (prototypical, moderately atypical, 
extremely atypical). 

An example of how unity and prototj^icality were manipulated by 
transforming two of a product's features is shown in Figure III-l. In this 
example two features of a telephone (handset and base) are altered using the 
shape transformation in order to make the product either more or less 
prototypical and more or less unified. The upper left-hand cell of the figure 
contains the most prototypical (++) form of the product. The prototypicality of 



31 



Feature A 
Base 



Feature B 
Handset 




Unity/Prototypical (++) 




Non-Unity/Atypical (+-) 




Non-Uiiity/At5TDical (-+) 




Unity/Atypical (-) 



(++) Prototypical Handset, Prototypical Base 
(+-) Prototypical Handset, Atypical Base 
(-+) Atypical Handset, Prototypical Base 
(--) Atypical Handset, Atypical Base 



FIGURE III-l 
EXAMPLE OF UNITY AND PROTOTYPICALITY MANIPULATIONS 



32 

all of the products that were used as stimuli was estabHshed through an 

examination of the products available on the market and was confirmed in 
pilot tests. This product form is also unified in that there is consistency or 
compatibility among the shapes of the base (Feature A) and the handset 
(Feature B). In this (prototypical) case the number of shared features with the 
category schema is high (positive) and unity or a visual connection or 
consistency among product features is also high (positive). In the upper right- 
hand cell of Figure III-l, the base (Feature A) of the product has been altered 
using a shape transformation so that it is no longer the same as that of the 
category prototype. This change has at the same time decreased the unity 
between the handset feature and the base feature. Thus, this version of the 
telephone product is atypical (+-) with respect to one of the two features being 
manipulated and is no longer unified. The same is true of the product in the 
lower-left cell of Figure III-l. In this case, the shape of the handset was 
altered in order to effect the manipulations of prototypicality and unity that 
would produce an atypical (-+) stimulus on one product featiire and an "un- 
unified" appearance. The base and handset features of the product in the 
lower-right comer of Figure III-l have both been altered. In this case the 
product no longer shares the shape of either Feature A or Feature B with the 



The aggregate mean ratings for the familiarity of the eleven stimulus 
sets that were pilot tested were as follows: Unity/Prototypical (M = 
6.46), Non-unity/Atypical (M = 4.86), Non-unity/Atypical (M = 4.96), and 
Unity/Atypical (4.76). Product variations were rated on 9-point semantic 
differential scales with 9 being the most familiar. 



33 

categoiy prototype. Thus, this product is quite atypical (-) with respect to 

prototypicaHty. This version does, however, exhibit unity since there is a 
visual connection or consistency among the two product features. As can be 
seen in the figure, this manipulation of the two product features results in 
three levels of prototypicality and two levels of unity being produced. 

Four possible patterns of results are shown in Figure III-2. These 
patterns have been labeled to indicate the explanation of aesthetic response 
that each supports. The unity explanation of aesthetic response would be 
supported by results showing that both unity conditions were more highly 
rated than both of the non-unity conditions (Figure III-2a). Such results would 
suggest that a product variation's consistency with the unity visual 
organization principle positively influenced subjects' aesthetic responses. The 
predictions of the schema incongruity hypotheses are the opposite of those for 
the unity explanation of aesthetic response. The schema incongruity 
hypotheses predict that moderately atypical stimuli will be preferred to stimuli 
that are prototypical or extremely atypical (Figure III-2b). The prototypicality 
explanation of aesthetic response would be supported by the results depicted 
in Figure III-2c. Here, the more prototypical a product variation is the higher 
its ratings. A pattern of results exactly opposite those for the prototypicaHty 
explanation would suggest an effect of novelty (Figure III-2d). In this way, the 
basic 2(Feature A) x 2(Feature B) design allows the hypotheses presented 
earlier to be examined. 



34 



Unity 
Feature A 



Feature B 



+ 



(a) 



Feature B 



Schema Incong ruity 
Feature A 



(b) 



Feature B 



Prototypicality 
Feature A 



+ 








- 



Feature B 



(c) 



Novelty 
Feature A 











H- 



(d) 



+ indicates the highest (i. e., most positive) rating(s) for a product version 

contained in the stimulus set. 
- indicates the lowest rating(s) for a product version contained in the set. 
indicates a rating between the highest and lowest ratings. 

FIGURE III-2 
POSSIBLE PATTERNS OF RESULTS 



35 

Stimulus Development 

The construction of stimuli that are to be used in research that examines 
aesthetic influences requires a great deal of care. Many aspects of an object's 
appearance have the potential to affect aesthetic responses. The influence of 
aesthetic aspects of a stimulus object (e. g., a product or a picture of a product) 
such as color, perspective, shading, etc. that could affect an aesthetic response 
must be eliminated or controlled. In addition to the problems and Hmitations 
inherent in controlling for extraneous aesthetic influences, the construction of 
visual (i. e., pictorial) stimuH for aesthetic research is further comphcated by 
the fact that it is usually difficult to precisely determine the strength of 
variables of interest (Nunnally 1981). 

Although there are quite a number of studies that have manipulated 
prototypicality (e. g., Hutchinson and Alba 1991), there is Httle in the way of 
precedent for constructing stimuli that simultaneously exhibit different levels 
of prototypicahty and unity. The construction of sets of stimuH for this 
experiment necessitated an exploration of the ways that unity and 
prototypicahty could be manipulated across a range of products. There were 
four principal requirements that guided the development of the stimulus sets. 
The first requirement, which pertained to the selection of particular products, 
was that the product class had to have a strong category prototype. In order 
to investigate the hypotheses concerning prototypicality it was necessary for 
there to be a strong prototypical product design (i. e., form, configuration) for 



36 

the product category. A second requirement that directed the selection of 

products for the stimuK sets concerned the (non)existence of a product that was 
atypical but unified. Product categories that contained instances of products 
that were atypical (i. e., novel) and unified were considered problematic 
because in such cases people may be more favorably disposed (i. e., receptive) 
toward atypical (but unified) product designs due to prior experience with or 
knowledge of the product. If this were the case it could lead to results that 
overstated the influence of the unity design factor. This is especially important 
since Experiment 1 effectively provides a theory test between a prototypicality 
explanation of aesthetic response and a unity explanation. A third 
requirement involved product conduciveness to the manipulation of unity. In 
order for a product to exhibit unity (i. e., a visual connection among elements, 
repetition of form or pattern) or disunity the product had to have parts that 
could be perceived and manipulated separately. The fourth requirement that 
guided the development of the stimulus sets concerned the mediimi used to 
create the stimuh and stimulus communicability. A medium was needed that 
would allow the creation and presentation of stimulus products that were 
drastically different fi:om the products that currently existed. This made it 
difficult to construct stimuli by altering (either photographically or using 
computer scanned images) existing products or pictures of existing products 
because such modification often results in introducing "aesthetic confounds" 



37 

(e. g., inconsistent perspective) and unintended degradation (e. g., blurry edges, 
cloudy surfaces) into a stimulus.^ 

The need for a method that afforded the construction of previously 
"uncreated" (i. e., nonexistent) products that were markedly different from 
existing products and the need to control for extraneous aesthetic influences 
led to the use of line drawings. The use of drawings does entail a trade-off of 
realism for "producibility" and greater experimental control. While this 
reduction in realism is unfortunate, it is not uncommon for research that is 
conducted in a laboratory setting. The use of drawings was also more practical 
for the purpose of reproducing the stimuli for inclusion in the booklets used in 
the experiment. This method of constructing stimuli necessitated the selection 
of products that could be clearly communicated through simple hne drawings. 

A nimiber of products in a wide variety of product categories were 
examined in catalogs and in stores in order to determine their suitability for 
use as stimuH in this experiment. An initial series of product, "studies" (i. e., 
sketches) was done to explore ways of manipulating products along the unity 
and prototypicality dimensions. A nmnber of products that seemed to meet the 
four requirements were then selected for further development in product 



2 

The possibility of modifying computer scanned images was explored. 

This approach proved to be unsatisfactory for the purposes of creating 

the stimuH for this particular experiment because the radical changes 

that had to be made to the computer scanned images introduced 

aesthetic confounds into the stimuh and often resulted in severe 

degradation of the image. 



38 

studies. A list of these products is presented in Appendix A. These product 

studies led to the identification of three basic ways to transform the features 
of the products so as to simultaneously accomphsh the prototypicaHty and 
unity manipulations. These transformations involved altering product features 
by changing the shape of parts of the product, adding texture to parts of the 
product, or adding trim to part of the product. Additional product studies were 
then undertaken to determine which products could be manipulated using each 
of the three transformations (shape, trim, and texture). These studies involved 
producing four versions of each product (for each of the three types of 
transformations) by systematically transforming two product features in order 
to accomphsh the unity manipulation (i. e., a visual connection among product 
features) at a particular level of prototypicaHty (i. e., shared features with the 
category prototype). 

In order to increase the generalizability of the results and demonstrate 
the robustness of the effects of interest, nine product categories were selected 
for use as stimuH. These nine product categories were: alarm clocks, bathroom 
scales, dressers, flashlights, hair dryers, lamps, refrigerators, telephones, and 
television remote controls. This resulted in a total of twenty-seven repHcations 
(nine product categories x three types of transformation). Each of these 
products had to be produced in four versions (Unity/Prototypical ++, Non- 
unity/Atypical +-, Non-unity/Atypical -+, and Unity/Atypical -). Thus, the 



39 

entire stimuli set contained one hundred and eight drawings of products. 
Examples of these stimuli sets are presented in Appendix B. 

Experimental Design 
The overall design of the experiment is a 2(Feature A) x 2(Feature B) x 
9(Products) x 3(Version) x 2(0rder) mixed factorial design. As was pointed out 
in the preceding discussion the manipulation of features A and B result in the 
manipulation of prototypicahty and unity. The twenty-seven repHcate sets of 
stimuli were organized into three questionnaire versions. Each of the three 
questionnaire versions contained all nine of the product categories (each 
product category was made up of a set of four variations of the product -- i. e., 
Feature A x Feature B) but for only one of the three transformation types 
(shape, trim, or texture). So for example, questionnaire version one contained 
the telephone stimulus set (set of four product variations) that were altered 
using the trim transformation; questionnaire version two contained the 
telephone stimulus set altered using the texture transformation; and 
questionnaire version three contained the telephone stimulus set altered using 
the shape transformation. While each questionnaire contained each of the nine 
product categories, in three of the nine cases the trim transformation was 
utihzed, in three of the nine cases the texture transformation was utilized, and 
m three of the nine cases the shape transformation was utilized. A diagram 
of this design is presented in Appendix C. Thus, Feature A, Feature B, 



40 

Products, and Transformation were all within-subjects factors. Particular 

transformations of the nine product categories (i. e., stimulus sets) were 
contained in the questionnaire Versions. Questionnaire Version and Order 
were between-subjects factors. The order in which the stimulus products 
(stimulus sets) were presented was reversed for half of the subjects. 

Experimental Procedure 
One-hundred and ninety-seven volunteer subjects enrolled in the 
Introductory Marketing course at the University of Florida participated in this 
experiment. Subjects received extra credit for their participation. The 
subjects were run in groups of 10-20 participants. The stimulus materials 
were contained in a booklet. The introductory page informed the subjects that 
they would be shown drawings of products and asked to evaluate the appeal 
of the product ideas based on their appearance. The subjects were told that 
the purpose of the study was to obtain consumers' reactions to products that 
companies were considering for introduction. It was also explained to the 
subjects that the products they were going to be evaluating were in the early 
stage of the product development process and for this reason the drawings 
were in a very rough (unfinished) form. Subjects were then told that each of 
the versions of a product performed equally well and that they were to rate all 



Q 

Power estimates using pilot data and the procedure suggested by Cohen 
(1977, pp. 364-379) for factorial designs indicated that this sample size 
would be sufficient for estimating effect sizes at the p < .05 level. 



41 

four of the product versions that were shown on each page. Subjects were then 

allowed to proceed through the task of rating the products at their own pace. 
The subjects rated each product design on 9-point semantic differential scales 
that measured aesthetic response (beautiful/ugly), familiarity 
(famiHar/unfamiHar), attitude (hke/dislike), quaHty (high quality/low quality), 
and price (high price/low price).^ Following the rating tasks, subjects were 
asked to write about how they determined the ratings that they gave to the 
proposed products. The entire procedure took approximately one-half hour to 
complete. 

Results and Discussion 
The manipulation check of the effect of a change in either Feature A or 
Feature B on aesthetic responses found that there was, in fact, a reduction in 
ratings of the appearance of the products (compared to those of the prototypical 
product version) as measured on the semantic differential scale anchored by 
Beautiful/Ugly. This is to say that in the case of the product variations that 
were altered so that one feature (either Feature A or Feature B) was no longer 
prototypical or unified the effect of the change was a reduction in positive 
aesthetic response. The average effect of a change in Feature A on aesthetic 
responses was -1.24. Likewise, the average effect of a change in Feature B on 



The direction of some of these scales was reversed in order to reduce 
possible response bias on the part of subjects. 



42 

aesthetic response was a -1.34. This pattern was consistent across most of the 

sets of stimuH for each product transformation (i. e., stimulus sets).^ The 
effects of a change in Feature A or Feature B from the category prototype are 
shown in Table III-l. In twenty-one of the twenty-seven stimulus sets the 
change of either Feature A or Feature B resulted in a lower beauty rating for 
the product variation as compared with the rating for the category prototype. 
In two stimulus sets the effects of a change in the product features were 
mixed. That is, a change in one feature (either A or B) had a negative effect 
on aesthetic response but a change in the other feature (B or A) had a positive 
effect (see the lamp/trim and lamp/texture stimulus sets in Table III-l). In 
only four of the twenty-seven stimulus sets were the effects of a change in 
Feature A and Feature B both (separately) in the opposite (i. e., positive) 
direction (see the bathroom scale/trim, bathroom scale/texture, TV remote 
control/trim, and the hair dryer/trim stimulus sets in Table III-l). Overall, the 
manipulation check demonstrates that for the majority of the stimulus sets a 
reduction in favorable aesthetic response does occur when the products are 
altered in such a way as to be both less prototypical and less unified than the 
category prototype. It should be noted that there is variation in the reduction 
in favorable aesthetic response across the twenty-seven stimulus sets. This is 
to be expected given the difficulties of precisely estimating the strength of each 



"Stimulus set" will be used throughout this discussion to refer to one of 
the transformation types (shape, trim, or texture) of a product category 
(e. g., telephone/shape transformation set). 



43 



TABLE III - 1 

MANIPULATION CHECK FOR THE EFFECT OF A CHANGE 

IN FEATURE A OR B ON BEAUTY RATINGS 



Product 


Feature A 


Feature B 


1. Bathroom scale 






Sh 


-0.14 


-0.17 


Tr 


1.00 


0.14 


Tx 


1.77 


0.86 


2. TV Control 






Sh 


-0.73 


-0.22 


Tr 


0.65 


0.97 


Tx 


-0.98 


-0.84 


3. Flashlight 






Sh 


-1.83 


-1.16 


Tr 


-3.04 


-3.55 


Tx 


-2.36 


-3.31 


4. Lamp 






Sh 


-0.16 


-0.14 


Tr 


0.02 


-1.28 


Tx 


-0.07 


1.06 


5. Refrigerator 






Sh 


-4.00 


-3.60 


Tr 


-1.09 


-1.12 


Tx 


-3.80 


-3.64 


6. Telephone 






Sh 


-2.60 


-1.01 


Tr 


-0.28 


-1.25 


Tx 


-0.56 


-0.99 



44 



TABLE III - 1 - mntinn^H 

MANIPULATION CHECK FOR THE EFFECT OF A CHANGE 
IN FEATURE A OR B ON BEAUTY RATINGS 



Product 



7. Hair dryer 

Sh 
Tr 
Tx 

8. Dresser 

Sh 
Tr 
Tx 

9. Clock 

Sh 
Tr 
Tx 



Mean effect of change 
across products 



Feature A 



-1.59 

0.33 

-3.58 



-0.13 

-1.88 
-2.07 



-3.33 
-1.43 
-1.60 



-1.24 



Feature B 



-3.72 
0.33 

-3.77 



-0.54 
-1.75 
-1.20 



-3.00 
-1.44 
-1.72 



-1.34 



manipulation (i. e., change in Features A and B via the transformation type) 
as it is adapted for each of the stimulus sets. 



>nses 



The Influence of Unity and Prototvpicahtv on Aesthetic and Derived Respor 

The critical test concerns what happens to aesthetic responses in the 
case where both Feature A and Feature B are altered so that they are less 
prototypical but more unified. The prediction consistent with the 
"prototypicality" hypothesis is that in such a case the aesthetic response 
ratings should go down since the resulting stimulus is quite atypical. The 



45 

"unity" hypothesis, however, suggests that if the changes in the features are 

made in a way that increases unity then aesthetic responses should be higher 
in this case (as opposed to the non-unity cases) since the product version 
exhibits consistency with the visual organization principle of unity. This is in 
effect a theory test (for a linear model) which corresponds to a test of the 
Feature A x Feature B interaction. This test can be extended to the 
investigation of the influence of unity and prototypicality on derived responses. 

Analyses 

The data were analyzed using mixed ANOVA designs with Version and 
Order being treated as between-subjects factors and Feature A, Feature B, and 
Products being treated as within-subjects factors. Transformation was also 
treated as a within-subjects factor because each subject saw products that had 
been altered using the three different transformation types. 

Subjects' product ratings on the five 9-point semantic differential scales 
were treated in three different ways in order to compute the dependent 
measures that were analyzed. The first approach was to perform the analysis 
directly on subjects' ratings of the products. A second approach involved 
computing the hnear contrast that reflected the interaction of Feature A and 
Feature B (i. e., the main effect of unity) for each design set. Under this 
approach difference or "interaction" scores were formed by adding subjects' 
ratings for the Unity/Prototypical and Unity/Atypical conditions and 



46 

subtracting from this the ratings for both of the Non-unity/Atypical conditions. 
The resulting score provides a straight-forward measure of the main effect of 
unity. The third way of forming the dependent measxires involved a 
modification of the interaction score. This variation entailed subtracting the 
product rating of the lowest rated Non-unity/Atypical condition from the 
product rating for the Unity/Atypical condition. This score allows a non-linear 
model of prototypicality to be examined (see Figure III-3). If prototypicaHty 
dominates unity then product versions that are more similar to the category 
prototype should receive higher ratings than less typical product versions (i. e., 
the minimum rating for either of the Non-unity/Atypical conditions should 
always be greater than the rating for the Unity/Atypical condition since the 
former always has more shared features with the category prototype than does 
the latter). 

Both the unity linear score (UjJ and the unity nonhnear score (Ujr) are 
needed in order to get a (more) complete sense of the effects of unity and 
prototypicality. While the U-^ score does provide an indication of the main 
effect of unity, it does not examine a (decreasing) non-linear model of 
prototypicality. The Uj^ score does examine a non-Hnear model of 
prototypicality; however, the U-^ score reflects some random variation in the 
subjects' ratings (i. e., the lowest rated Non-unity/Atypical condition is always 
used to construct the U-^ score). Parallel analyses were conducted on each of 
the three variations of dependent measures (i. e., ratings scores, linear unity 



47 



Aesthetic 
(or Dervied) 
Response 



Linear Model 



( + + ) 



( + - ) ( - + ) 

Unity /Prototypicality 



(- - ) 



Nonlinear Model 



Aesthetic 
(or Derived) 
Response 




( + -^ ) 



( + -) ( - + ) 

Unity /Prototypicality 



( - - ) 



FIGURE III-3 
LINEAR AND NONLINEAR "UNITY" SCORES 



48 
scores, and nonlinear unity scores) in order to insure that the results reported 

were not simply an artifact of a particular analysis scheme. 

Hypothesis Testing 

The critical test for examining the hypotheses concerning the influence 
of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic and derived responses involves the 
Feature A x Feature B interaction. In this design, the Feature A x Feature B 
interaction is the main effect of unity. This interaction "tests" the competing 
predictions of the prototypicahty and unity hypotheses. If the 
Unity/Prototypical (++) products of this design receive higher ratings than the 
Non-Unity/Atypical (+-) and Non-unity/Atypical (-+) products and these in turn 
are more highly rated than the Unity/Atypical (-) products then the 
prototypicality explanation of aesthetic (and derived) response would seem to 
be supported (Hypothesis 2). If, however, the Unity/Prototypical (++) products 
and the Unity/Atypical (-) products were both rated significantly higher than 
the Non-unity/Atypical (+-, -+) products then support for the unity hypothesis 
would be indicated (Hypothesis 1). The schema incongruity explanation of 
aesthetic response would be supported if the Non-unity/Atypical (+-, -+) 
products were rated significantly higher than the prototypical products (++) 
and/or the extremely atypical products (--). If aesthetic response was found to 
be positively related to atypicality than this would suggest a novelty effect. 



49 

The means for the product beauty ratings for each of the twenty-seven 
stimulus sets are presented in Table III-2. Across the twenty-seven stimulus 
sets the products that did not exhibit unity (M = 4.06) were rated lower than 
the products that did exhibit unity (M = 5.12). The analysis of variance 
presented in Table III-3 indicates that this difference which is captured in the 
Feature A x Feature B interaction is significant F (1,184) = 338.16, p < .0001. 
This supports the unity hypothesis which predicted that aesthetic responses 
are more positive for objects (products) that exhibit high consistency with the 
visual organization principle of unity than they are for objects (products) that 
are not consistent with the unity visual organization principle. 

The significance of the Factor A x Factor B interaction (i. e., main effect 
of unity) was also tested in parallel analyses that utilized the linear unity 
scores (Uj^) formed fi:-om subjects' ratings of all four versions of each stimulus 
set [i. e., (Unity/Prototypical + Unity/Atypical) - (Non-unity/Atypical + Non- 
Unity/Atypical)] and the nonhnear unity scores (U-^) [i. e., (Unity/Atypical) - 
minimum (Non-unity/Atypical)]. The analysis of variance tables for each of 
these approaches are shown in Table III-4 and Table III-5. The unity 
hypothesis (i. e., Feature A x Feature B interaction) is tested by determining 
whether or not the intercept is zero. That is, if the intercept were actually 
zero, what would the probability be of obtaining, by chance alone, a value as 
large or larger than the one actually obtained? The results reported in Table 



TABLE III - 2 
MEAN BEAUTY RATINGS AND UNITY SCORES 



50 



Product 


(++) 


(+-) 


(-+) 


(--) 


Ut, 


Un 


1. Bathroom Scale 














Sh 


5.30 


5.16 


5.13 


5.18 


0.85 


0.88*** 


Tr 


4.42 


5.42 


4.56 


5.81 


0i2*b 


1.38*** 


Tx 


4.03 


5.80 


4.89 


4.81 


-0.89 


0.43+ 


2. TV Control 














Sh 


4.82 


4.09*^ 


4.60 


4.95 


0.51** 


J^^J^^Hft- 


Tr 


3.98 


4.63 


4.95 


6.42 


0.44* 


2.23*** 


Tx 


5.36 


4.38** 


4.52** 


5.28 


0.84** 


1.36*** 


3. Flashlight 














Sh 


6.31 


3.95*** 


3.00*** 


3.05*** 


1.20*** 


0.55** 


Tr 


5.57 


3.74*** 


4.41*** 


3.97*** 


0.70*** 


0.61* 


Tx 


5.89 


2.85*** 


2.34*** 


5.15* 


2.94*** 


3.00*** 


4. Lamp 














Sh 


5.64 


5.66 


4.36*** 


4.36** 


0.00 


0.39* 


Tr 


4.65 


4.58 


5.71 


5.92 


0.14 


142*** 


Tx 


5.00 


4.84 


4.86 


6.05 


0.68** 


2.08*** 


5. Refrigerator 














Sh 


6.00 


2.00*** 


2.40*** 


3.95*** 


2.80*** 


2.20*** 


Tr 


5.31 


4.22** 


4.19** 


5.70 


1.28*** 


2.03*** 


Tx 


6.03 


2.23*** 


2.39*** 


3.34*** 


2.34*** 


1.32*** 


6. Telephone 














Sh 


5.30 


2.70*** 


4.29** 


3.48*** 


0.90*** 


0.94** 


Tr 


5.44 


5.16+ 


4.19*** 


4.18*** 


0.15 


0.21+ 


Tx 


5.74 


5.18** 


4.75*** 


6.02 


0.90*** 


1.41*** 



51 



TABLE III - 2 - contimiRH 
MEAN BEAUTY RATINGS 



Product 


(++) 


(+-) 


(-+) 


(-) 


Uj, 


% 


7. Hair dryer 












IN 


Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


6.57 
4.64 
6.33 


498*** 

4.98 

2.75*** 


2.85*** 

4.98 

2.56*** 


3.30*** 

5.42 

5.17** 


0.90*** 

0.03 

3.06*** 


0.61** 

0.92*** 

2.94*** 


8. Dresser 














Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


5.08 
5.44 
5.64 


4.95 

3.56*** 
3 57*** 


4.54* 

3.69*** 

4 44** 


5.66 
6.61 
4.54** 


0.62*** 
2.41*** 
0.99*** 


1.80*** 
3.26*** 
1.42** 


9. Clock 














Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


5.72 
4.92 
5.17 


2.39*** 
3.49*** 

3.57*** 


2.72*** 
3.48*** 
3.45*** 


4.75** 
4.26** 
5.00 


2.65*** 
1.07*** 
1.56*** 


2.58*** 
1.03*** 
1.71*** 


Total'^ 


5.34 


4.10*** 


4.01*** 


4.90*** 


1.05*** 


1.48*** 



b 

c 

* 

+ 



Indicates that the difference for a change in a feature from prototypical 

to atypical was significant based on the t-statistic computed for each 

product/transformation pair. 

Indicates unity score is significantly different from zero. 

Statistical significance based on ANOVA results reported in the text. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .001 in one-tailed-tests. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .01 in one-tailed-tests. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .05 in one-tailed-tests. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .1 in one-tailed-tests. 



52 



TABLE III - 3 
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR BEAUTY DEPENDENT MEASURE 

RATING SCORE APPROACH 



Source 


DF 


Type III SS 


F-Value 


P>F 


Between Subiect Effects 


Version 


2 


42.9350 


1.63 


0.1991 


Order 


1 


13.7790 


1.05 


0.3080 


Version * Order 


2 


107.6630 


4.08 


0.0184 


Error Sub (Version Order) 


184 


2425.7720 






Within Subiect Effects 


Product 


8 


1081.1417 


40.78 


0.0001 


Trans 


2 


165.0833 


24.91 


0.0001 


Prod * Version (Residual) 


14 


566.1260 


12.02 


0.0001 


Prod * Order 


8 


199.3217 


7.52 


0.0001 


Trans * Order 


2 


5.4222 


0.82 


0.2500 


Prod * Version * Order (Residual) 


14 


43.1955 


0.93 


0.2500 


Error Sub (Product) 


1472 


4878.0299 






Feature A 


1 


124.2720 


23.97 


0.0001 


A * Version 


2 


252.2238 


24.33 


0.0001 


A * Order 


1 


10.6083 


2.05 


0.1542 


A * Version * Order 


2 


6.1115 


0.59 


0.5556 


Error Sub (A) 


184 


953.7624 






Feature B 


1 


52.8499 


11.86 


0.0007 


B * Version 


2 


114.6225 


12.86 


0.0001 


B * Order 


1 


21.7458 


4.88 


0.0284 


B * Version * Order 


2 


17.8531 


2.00 


0.1378 


Error Sub (B) 


184 


819.8276 






Feature A * Feature B 


1 


1941.8813 


338.16 


0.0001 


A * B * Version 


2 


67.4647 


5.87 


0.0034 


A * B * Order 


1 


3.1291 


0.54 


0.4614 


A * B * Version * Order 


2 


5.6170 


0.49 


0.6140 


Error (A * B) 


184 


1056.6273 






Prod * A * B 


8 


933.9437 


53.26 


0.0001 


Prod * A * B * Version 


16 


787.4382 


22.45 


0.0001 


Prod * A * B * Order 


8 


94.0783 


5.37 


0.0001 


Prod * A * B * Version * Order 


16 


35.9705 


1.03 


0.4255 


Error Sub (Prod * A * B) 


1472 


3226.3444 







53 



TABLE III - 4 
ANALYSIS OF VAEIANCE FOR BEAUTY DEPENDENT MEASURE 

LINEAR SCORE APPROACH ^unn. 



Soiirce 



DF 



Type III SS 



F-Value 



Between Subject Effects 



P>F 



Intercept 
Version 
Order 

Version * Order 
Error Sub (Version * Order) 



Within Subject Effects 



1 
2 
1 
2 

184 



7767.5254 

269.8589 

12.5163 

22.4679 

4226.5090 



338.16 
5.87 
0.54 
0.49 



0.0001 
0.0034 
0.4614 
0.6140 



Product 
Trans 

Prod * Version (Residual) 
Prod * Order 
Trans * Order 

Prod * Version * Order (Residual) 
Error Sub (Prod) 



8 

2 
14 

8 

2 

14 
1472 



3735.7748 

549.8955 

2599.8573 

376.3133 

40.2259 

103.6562 

12905.3777 



53.26 

31.36 

21.18 

5.37 

2.29 

0.84 



0.0001 
0.0001 
0.0001 
0.0001 
0.2500 
0.2500 



III-4 and Table III-5 clearly indicate support for the unity hypothesis. The 
intercept using the Hnear unity score (Ul) as the dependent measure was 
significantly different from zero F (1,184) = 338.16, p < 0.0001.^ The 
intercept as tested using the nonHnear unity score (U-^) approach was also 
significantly different from zero F(l,190) = 473.48, p < 0.001. "^ The fact that 
there is a small, but significant t (190 = 6.04, one-tailed p < .001) difference 
between the means of the Unity/Prototypical (++) products (M = 5.34) and the 



The results for the linear unity scores are identical to the results for the 
ratings score approach. 

The difference in the denominator degrees of freedom are due to missing 
data that caused several subjects to be eliminated from the "unity score" 
analysis. 



54 



TABLE III - 5 



AINALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR BEAUTY DEPENDENT MEASURE 
NONLINEAR UNITY SCORE APPROACH 


Source 


DF 


Type III SS 


F-Value 


P> F 


Between Subiect Effects 




Intercept 
Version 
Order 

Version * Order 
Error Sub (Version * Order) 


1 
2 
1 
2 
190 


3873.5708 

340.8709 

3.2588 

1.3466 

1554.4164 


473.48 

20.83 

0.40 

0.08 


0.0001 
0.0001 
0.5287 
0.9210 


Within Subiect Effects 




Product 
Trans 

Prod * Version 
Prod * Order 
Trans * Order 
Prod * Version (Residual) 
Error Sub (Prod) 


8 

2 
14 

8 

2 

14 
1520 


298.1844 

63.3658 

484.9146 

123.7531 

41.8300 

75.8172 

5861.4233 


9.67 
8.21 
8.98 
4.01 
5.42 
1.40 


0.0001 
0.0001 
0.0001 
0.0100 
0.0100 
0.2500 



Unity/Atypical (-) products (M = 4.90) suggests that prototypicality does have 
some effect on aesthetic responses. 

The analysis of variance presented in Table III-3 as well as those shown 
in Table III-4 and Table III-5 also show that there were a number of factors 
and interactions among factors that resulted in significant effects in this 
design. Most of these significant effects can be attributed to differences in the 
strength of the manipulations used to create each stimulus set and the 
differences across product categories. The effect of Product was significant, 
F (8,1472) = 40.78, p < .0001, as was the effect of Transformation type 
F (2,1472) = 24.91, p < .0001. Since stimulus sets (i. e., Transformation types) 
are contained in each of the versions of the questionnaire the effects of these 



55 

factors are also indicated in the Product x Version (Residual) interactions.^ 

The differential strength of the manipulations across stimulus sets was further 

examined in order to ensure that the effects were in the right direction across 

the twenty-seven stimulus sets. This was done by conducting t-tests using the 

"unity" scores for each of the stimulus sets in order to assess the degree to 

which the effect of unity was significant and in the proper direction across the 

twenty-seven stimulus sets despite the differences in the strength of the 

manipulations. The analysis for the Hnear unity scores is shown in Table III-6 

(the unity scores were also presented in Table III-2). In twenty-one out of the 

twenty-seven stimulus sets the linear unity scores are significantly different 

fi-om zero (p < .05; p < .01 for nineteen of the stimulus sets). In six cases the 

interaction scores were not significant and in only one case was a score 

negative and significant (i. e., in the "wrong" direction).^ The findings are 

similar when the analysis is conducted using nonhnear unity scores. This 

analysis is presented in Table III-7. When the differential strength of the 



Q 

In this design the main effect of Transformation type is examined using 
a Latin square type orthogonal fi-action of the complete five factor 
design. This is consistent with the treatment suggested by Winer, 
Brown, and Michels (1991, pp. 706-711) for Latin squares and related 
designs. 

q 

This negative case occurred for the texture manipulation of the 
bathroom scale stimulus set. All three of the bathroom scale 
product/cases were found to be somewhat problematic because this 
product was not easily divided into two separate parts (e. g., telephone 
stimulus - handset, base). This was particularly true for the texture 
manipulation of the bathroom scale (see bathroom scale/texture stimuli 
in Appendix B). 



56 



TABLE III - 6 



AJNALYSIS OF MANIPULATION STRENGTH DIFFERENCES - 

LINEAR UNITY SCORES 


Product 


Uy Score for 
tJeauty 


S. E. 


t-test 


1. Bathroom scale 








Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


0.8335 

0.1212 

-0.8923 


0.2032 
0.1449 
0.4442 


0.8201 
1.6726* 
-4.0172 


2. TV Remote Control 








Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


0.5076 
0.4384 
0.8409 


0.3853 
0.3913 
0.4711 


2.6345** 

2.2410* 

3.5696** 


3. Flashlight 








Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


1.2032 
0.6969 
2.9394 


0.3527 
0.3547 
0.4888 


6.8233*** 

3.9298*** 

12.0267*** 


4. Lamp 








Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


0.0000 
0.1385 
0.6770 


0.2412 
0.2787 
0.4214 


0.0000 
0.9938 

3.2124** 


5. Refrigerator 








Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


2.7955 
1.2770 
2.3359 


0.4302 
0.4308 
0.4761 


12.9961*** 

5.9281*** 
9.8119*** 


6. Telephone 








Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


0.9000 
0.1485 
0.9015 


0.4309 
0.2062 
0.4160 


4.1773*** 

1.4401 

4.3341*** 



57 



TABLE III -fi -mnfimi^H 

ANALYSIS OF MANIPULATION STRENGTH DIFFERENCES - 

LINEAR UNITY SCORES 



Product 



7. Hair dryer 

Sh 
Tr 
Tx 

8. Dresser 

Sh 
Tr 
Tx 

9. Clock 

Sh 
Tr 
Tx 



Uy Score for 
"beauty 



0.8940 
0.0303 
3.0539 



0.6137 
2.4077 
0.9925 



2.6462 
1.0682 
1.5531 



S. E. 



0.4167 
0.3029 
0.5295 



0.3105 
0.4661 

0.5844 



0.4438 
0.4164 
0.3905 



t-test 



4.2902*** 
0.2000 
11.5353*** 



3.9526*** 

10.3311*** 

3.3966*** 



11.9243*** 
5.1308*** 
7.9536*** 



+ 



Indicates differences significant at p < .001 in one-tailed-tests 
indicates differences significant at p < .01 in one-tailed-tests 
Indicates differences significant at p < .05 in one-tailed-tests 
Indicates differences significant at p < .1 in one-tailed-tests 



manipulations is examined by looking at the difference between the 
Unity/Atypical product and the lowest rated Non-Unity/Atypical product for 
each stimulus set, all of the scores are positive and the scores for twenty-five 
of the stimulus sets are significant at the p < .05 level (twenty-two of these are 
significant at the p < .01 level or higher). These analyses suggest that even 
though there are differences in the strengths of the manipulations due to 
transformation type and product class, the effect of unity is relatively 
consistent (i. e., significantly positive) across both products and 
transformations . 



58 



TABLE III - 7 
ANALYSIS OF MANIPULATION STRENGTH DIFFERENCES 
NONLINEAR UNITY SCORES 



Product 



1. Bathroom scale 

Sh 
Tr 
Tx 

2. TV Remote Control 

Sh 
Tr 
Tx 

3. Flashlight 

Sh 
Tr 
Tx 

4. Lamp 

Sh 
Tr 
Tx 

5. Refrigerator 

Sh 
Tr 
Tx 

6. Telephone 

Sh 
Tr 
Tx 



Ujv^T Score for 
Beauty 



0.8788 
1.3788 
0.4308 



1.4091 
2.2308 
1.3636 



0.5539 
0.6061 
3.0000 



S. E. 



0.1985 
0.1988 
0.2816 



0.2653 
0.2287 
0.2981 



0.2352 
0.2678 
0.3260 



0.3939 


0.1753 


1.4242 


0.2275 


2.0769 


0.2768 


2.1969 


0.2800 


2.0308 


0.2685 


1.3182 


0.2663 


0.9394 


0.2678 


0.2121 


0.1441 


1.4091 


0.2443 



t-test 



4.4272*** 
6.9359*** 
1.5296+ 



5.3113*** 

9.7551*** 
4.5741*** 



2.3551** 

2.2628* 

9.2017*** 



2.2479* 
6.2592*** 

7.5047*** 



7.8451*** 
7.5629*** 
4.9493*** 



3.5073** 

1.4725+ 
5.7688*** 



59 



TABLE III - 7 - CnntimiPH 

ANALYSIS OF MANIPULATION STRENGTH DIFFERENCES - 

NONLINEAR UNITY SCORES 





U]VT Score for 
Beauty 






Product 


S. E. 


t-test 


7. Hair dryer 








Sh 


0.6061 


0.2470 


2.4536** 


Tr 


0.9242 


0.2226 


4.1516*** 


Tx 


2.9385 


0.3375 


8.7074*** 


8. Dresser 








Sh 


1.8030 


0.2416 


7.4624*** 


Tr 


3.2615 


0.2375 


13.7356*** 


Tx 


1.4242 


0.4108 


3.4666** 


9. Clock 








Sh 


2.5846 


0.2556 


10.1118*** 


Tr 


1.0303 


0.2471 


4.1696*** 


Tx 


1.7121 


0.2068 


8.2777*** 



+ 



Indicates differences significant at p < .001 in one-tailed-tests. 
Indicates differences significant at p < .01 in one-tailed-tests. 
Indicates differences significant at p < .05 in one-tailed-tests. 
Indicates differences significant at p < .1 in one-tailed-tests. 



While an interaction of order with the effect of unity (i. e., the Feature 
A X Feature B interaction) was not indicated, order was found to interact with 
factors such as Product. In part, the effect of order seems to be attributable 
to subjects increasing acceptance of the use of the simplified (i. e., line 
drawings without color) drawings to depict products. Such an explanation is 
suggested by the fact that, in general, when the stimuli for a particular 
product category were rated toward the end of the rating task they received 
slightly higher ratings than when they were rated at the beginning of the 



60 

rating task. This was controlled for to some degree by reversing the 
presentation order of stimuli in the second order. 

Perceived FamiHaritv 

Hypothesis 6 predicted that consistency with the visual organization 
principle of unity was positively related to perceived famiHarity. The means 
for the familiarity ratings for each of the twenty-seven stimulus sets are 
presented in Table III-8. The analysis of variance tables for the rating score, 
linear unity score, and nonlinear unity score approaches are presented in 
Tables 111-9, III-IO, and III-ll, respectively. 

The analysis of variance for the subject ratings of famiHarity (Table III- 
9) indicates a significant unity effect for perceived famiHarity F (1,181) = 
254.47, p < .0001. The results for the analysis of variance using Hnear unity 
scores were very similar to those observed using subject ratings with the unity 
effect achieving the same level of significance F (1,181) = 254.47, p < .0001. 
The analysis of variance for the nonlinear score approach, which is probably 
the most appropriate analysis in this case since it removes the influence of the 
Unity/Prototypical ceh of the design, also indicates a significant effect of unity 
on perceived familiarity F (1,188) = 10.65, p < .0013.^° These results 
suggest that unity can encourage feelings of perceived familiarity. 



10 

The pattern of interactions observed among Product, Transformation 

type, and Order were the same as were discussed for the influence of 

unity on aesthetic responses. 



61 



TABLE III - 8 
MEAN FAMILIARITY RATINGS AND UNITY SCORES 




Product 


(++) 


(+-) 


(-+) 


(--) 


Ut. 


Un 


1. Bathroom scale 












CJ 


Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


7.62 
7.06 
7.05 


7.14**^ 

6.97 

6.77 


5.40*** 

7.13 

6.23* 


5.56*** 

6.98 

6.10** 


03i**b 

0.025 
0.03 


0.45* 

0.27 

0.42 


2. TV Remote Control 














Sh 
Tr 


7.59 
6.62 


5.08** 
6.13* 


5.41*** 
6.51 


494*** 
6.89 


0.97*** 
0.53** 


0.65 
1.45*** 


Tx 


7.35 


5.17*** 


5.32*** 


5.86*** 


1.31*** 


1.00*** 


3. Flashlight 














Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


7.93 
7.49 
7.49 


4.80*** 
5.52*** 
4.52*** 


4.16*** 
5.79*** 
427*** 


4.05*** 
5.49*** 
6.35*** 


1.54*** 
0.84*** 
2.43*** 


0.27 
0.35 
2.21*** 


4. Lamp 














Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


8.22 
7.21 
7.43 


5.95*** 
6.10*** 
6.38** 


3.98*** 

6.81* 

6.18** 


3.57*** 

6.60* 

7.46 


0.89*** 

0.45** 

1.19*** 


-0.18 
0.67** 
2.02*** 


5. Refrigerator 














Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


7.97 
7.75 
8.22 


3.16*** 
5.52*** 
4.21** 


3.25*** 
5.28*** 
4.29*** 


3.84*** 
6.61*** 
4.52*** 


2.68*** 
1.88*** 
2.16*** 


0.92*** 
0.67** 


6. Telephone 














Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


7.26 
7.16 
6.89 


3.84*** 
6.19*** 
6.24** 


4 yy*** 
5.46*** 

5.73*** 


3.41*** 
5.52*** 
6.41* 


1.10*** 
0.50*** 
0.65*** 


-0.31 
0.34** 
0.82** 



62 



TABLE III - 8 - contimifiH 
MEAN FAMILIARITY RATINGS AND UNITY SCORES 



Product 


(++) 


(+-) 


(-+) 


(--) 


Ut, 


Un 


7. Hair dryer 














Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


8.05 
7.05 
7.67 


6.48*** 

6.38** 

3.98*** 


446*** 

6.54* 
4.30*** 


4.40*** 

6.44** 

5.69*** 


0.83*** 

0.33* 

2.68*** 


0.21 

0.52** 

2.02*** 


8. Dresser 














Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


7.76 
7.34 
7.43 


6.62*** 

4.87*** 
5.68*** 


5.98*** 
4.97*** 
5.63*** 


6.29*** 

7.51 

6.37* 


0.73** 

2.52*** 

1.18*** 


0.56* 

2.95*** 

1.15*** 


9. Clock 














Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


7.28 
7.33 
7.05 


4.51*** 

5.68*** 

5.44*** 


4.75*** 
5.78*** 
5.76*** 


6.43** 

6.08*** 

6.86 


2.19*** 
0.97*** 
1.32*** 


2.09*** 

0.77** 

1.50*** 


Total'^ 


7.45 


5.53*** 


5.34*** 


5.79*** 


1.19*** 


0.94*** 



b 
c 

* 

+ 



Indicates that the difference for a change in a feature from prototypical 

to atypical was significant based on the t-statistic computed for each 

product/transformation pair. 

Indicates unity score is significantly different from zero. 

Statistical significance based on ANOVA results reported in the text. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .001 in one-tailed-tests. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .01 in one-tailed-tests. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .05 in one-tailed-tests. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .1 in one-tailed-tests. 



63 



TABLE III - 9 
ANALYSIS OF VARLySTCE FOR FAMILIARITY DEPENDENT MEASURE 

RATING SCORE APPROACH 



Source 



Between Subject Effects 



Version 
Order 

Version * Order 
Error Sub (Version * Order) 



Within Subject Effects 



Product 
Trans 

Prod * Version (Residual) 
Prod. Order 
Trans * Order 

Prod * Version * Order (Residual) 
Error Sub (Product) 



Feature A 
A * Version 
A * Order 

A * Version * Order 
Error Sub (A) 

Feature B 
B * Version 
B * Order 

B * Version * Order 
Error Sub (B) 

A*B 

A * B * Version 
A * B * Order 
A * B * Version * Order 
Error Sub (A * B) 

Prod * A * B 
Prod * A * B * Version 
Prod * A * B * Order 
Prod * A * B * Version * Order 
Error Sub (Prod * A * B) 



DF 



2 

1 

2 

181 



8 

2 
14 

8 

2 

14 
1448 



1 
2 
1 
2 
181 



1 
2 
1 
2 
181 



1 
2 
1 
2 
181 



8 
16 

8 
16 

1448 



Type III SS 



F-Value 



73.7530 

233.9050 

8.6500 

12174.5330 



0.55 
3.48 
0.06 



946.3903 

724.2835 

677.6986 

38.3970 

46.4860 

189.0356 

8172.4271 



1459.8545 

300.8827 

7.6979 

17.3149 

1019.2983 



919.4761 

14.4650 

1.4952 

4.1657 

895.3306 



2362.5960 
69.0487 
21.4075 
22.0981 

1680.4642 



549.3698 

434.3241 

109.7385 

52.1372 

3510.0931 



20.96 
64.16 
8.58 
0.85 
4.12 
2.39 



259.23 

27.71 

1.37 

1.54 



185.88 
1.46 
0.30 
0.42 



254.47 
3.72 
2.31 
1.19 



28.33 

11.20 

5.66 

1.34 



P>F 



0.5789 
0.0638 
0.9377 



0.0001 
0.0001 
0.0001 
0.5582 
0.0250 
0.0100 



0.0001 
0.0001 
0.2439 
0.2177 



0.0001 
0.2345 
0.5831 
0.6570 



0.0001 
0.0261 
0.1306 
0.3066 



0.0001 
0.0001 
0.0001 
0.1618 



64 



TABLE III- 10 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR FAMILURITY DEPENDENT MEASURE 

LINEAR UNITY SCORE APPROACH 



Source 


DF 


Type III SS 


F-Value 


P>F 


Between Subiect Effects 








Intercept 
Version 
Order 

Version * Order 
Error Sub (Version * Order) 


1 
2 

1 

2 

188 


71.9460 

426.8649 

54.3667 

11.3613 

1269.5378 


10.65 

31.61 

8.05 

0.84 


0.0013 
0.0001 
0.0050 
0.4328 


Within Subiect Effects 




Product 
Trans 

Prod * Version (Residual) 
Prod * Order 
Trans * Order 

Prod * Version * Order (Residual) 
Error Sub (Prod) 


8 
2 

14 
8 
2 
14 
1504 


727.7061 

661.0854 

557.1115 

60.4733 

1.2788 

84.6541 

6816.5729 


20.07 
72.93 
8.78 
1.67 
0.14 
1.33 


0.0001 
0.0001 
0.0001 
0.1016 
0.2500 
0.2500 



65 



TABLE III - 11 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR FAMILIARITY DEPENDENT MEASURE 

NONLINEAR UNITY SCORE APPROACH 



Source 


DF 


Type III SS 


F-Value 


P>F 


Between Subiect Effects 


Intercept 


1 


9450.3839 


254.47 


0.0001 


Version 


2 


276.1947 


3.72 


0.0261 


Order 


1 


85.6300 


2.31 


0.1306 


Version * Order 


2 


88.3924 


1.19 


0.3066 


Error Sub (Version * Order) 


181 


6721.8569 






Within Subiect Effects 


Product 


8 


2197.4792 


28.33 


0.0001 


Trans 


2 


395.5843 


20.40 


0.0001 


Prod * Version 


14 


1341.7119 


9.88 


0.0001 


Prod * Order 


8 


438.9539 


5.66 


0.0001 


Trans * Order 


2 


9.8527 


0.51 


0.2500 


Prod * Version * Order (Residual) 


14 


198.696 


1.46 


0.2500 


Error Sub (Prod) 


1448 


14040.3723 







Derived Responses 

The remaining three hypotheses concerned the effect of aesthetic 
response on derived responses (i. e., attitude, quality, and price). It was 
hypothesized that aesthetic responses would influence derived responses and 
thus products that received more positive aesthetic ratings (i. e., products that 
exhibit unity) would also be rated higher with regard to liking (i. e., attitude), 
quality (i. e., perceived quality), and price (i. e., expected price) than would 
products that received less positive aesthetic ratings. The critical tests for 
examining these h5rpotheses are the same as the critical test for examining the 
influence of unity on aesthetic response except the dependent measures reflect 



66 

the construct of interest (e. g., attitude, perceived quality). Thus, if the 

products that received higher (more positive) aesthetic response ratings also 
receive significantly higher ratings with respect to scales measuring derived 
responses than this would provide at least some evidence of the broader 
influence that product aesthetics may exert on consumer behavior. 

The analyses and findings concerning attitude, perceived quality, and 
price expectations will be discussed together since the analyses employed were 
identical for all three and the results were for the most part parallel. The 
means for the Hking, quahty, and price ratings are presented in Table III-12, 
Table III-13, and Table III-14, respectively. For the most part, the pattern of 
the means that was observed for the liking and quality derived responses was 
similar to the pattern observed in the case of aesthetic response. That is, both 
the Unity/Prototypical and the Unity/Atypical conditions received higher 
ratings than either of the two Non-unity/Atypical conditions. The pattern 
observed for the price ratings was somewhat different. The means for the 
price ratings across stimulus sets contained quite a number of instances where 
the Unity/Typical (++) product version was the lowest rated version (this was 
true for eleven of the twenty-seven stimulus sets). In twenty of the stimulus 
sets the Unity/Atypical (-) was the highest rated product version. One 
possible explanation for this is that subjects may attribute the unusual or 
novel appearance of the atypical product versions to expensive "designer 



67 





TABLE III- 12 
MEAN LIKING RATINGS AND UNITY SCORES 






Product 


(++) 


(+-) 


(-+) 


(-) 


Ut, 


Um 




1. Bathroom scale 












!>' 




Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


6.31 
4.89 

4.47 


592**a 

5.91 
6.44 


5.06** 

5.22 

5.25 


4.92** 

6.49 

5.28 


0.12 
0.13+^ 
-0.97 


0.83*** 
1.71*** 
0.56+ 






2. TV Remote Control 


















Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


5.37 
4.33 
5.97 


4.58* 

4.73 

4.61** 


5.09 
5.44 
5.00** 


5.20 
7.09 
5.74 


0.40* 

0.62** 

1.10** 


142*** 
2.74*** 
1.68*** 






3. Flashlight 


















Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


7.08 
6.16 
6.72 


4.09*** 
3.95*** 
2.92*** 


3.41*** 
4.53*** 
2.46*** 


3.47*** 
4.26*** 
5.48** 


1.53*** 
0.96*** 
3.36*** 


0.78** 
0.77** 
3.23*** 






4. Lamp 


















Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


6.56 

5.08 
5.36 


5.95* 

4.80 

5.30 


4.34*** 

6.02 

4.98 


4.53*** 

6.25 

6.73 


0.37** 

0.26* 

0.91** 


0.66** 
1.61** 

2.58*** 






5. Refrigerator 


















Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


6.97 
6.13 
6.89 


2.06*** 
4.14*** 
2.31*** 


2.46*** 
4.20*** 
2.37*** 


3.98*** 

6.05 

3.40*** 


3.25*** 
1.96*** 

2.72*** 


2.14*** 
2.55*** 
1.36*** 






6. Telephone 


















Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


5.98 
6.02 
6.05 


3.03*** 

5.65+ 

5.26** 


4.20*** 
4.29*** 
4.97** 


3.63*** 

4.40*** 

6.42 


1.19*** 

0.26* 

1.10*** 


0.92** 
0.44** 
1.76*** 





68 



TABLE III - 12 - continued 
MEAN LIKING RATINGS AND UNITY SCORES 



Product 


(++) 


(+-) 


(-+) 


(-) 


Ut. 


Un 


7. Hair dryer 














Sh 


7.40 


5.45 


3.11 


3.50 


1.09*** 


0.71** 


Tr 


5.22 


5.37 


5.14 


5.74 


0.24+ 


2 14*** 


Tx 


6.97 


3.06 


2.80 


5.61 


3.31*** 


3.23*** 


8. Dresser 














Sh 


5.45 


5.26 


4.74 


5.86 


0.65** 


1.85*** 


Tr 


5.89 


3.38 


3.69 


7.03 


2.90*** 


3.85*** 


Tx 


6.13 


3.84 


4.68 


4.71 


1.18** 


1.56** 


9. Clock 














Sh 


6.44 


2.58 


2.81 


5.13 


3.10*** 


2.75*** 


Tr 


5.63 


3.74 


3.79 


4.81 


1.39*** 


1.45*** 


Tx 


5.69 


3.85 


3.51 


5.75 


2.03*** 


2.38*** 


Total'^ 


5.97 


4.38 


4.21 


5.24 


1.30*** 


1.73*** 



b 

c 

*** 

** 

* 

+ 



Indicates that the difference for a change in a feature from prototypical 

to atjrpical was significant based on the t-statistic computed for each 

product/transformation pair. 

Indicates unity score is significantly different from zero. 

Statistical significance based on ANOVA results reported in the text. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .001 in one-tailed-tests. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .01 in one-tailed-tests. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .05 in one-tailed-tests. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .1 in one-tailed-tests. 



TABLE III - 13 



69 





MEAN QUALITY RATINGS AND UNITY SCORES 


Product 


(++) 


(+-) 


(-+) 


(--) 


Ut, 


Un 




1. Bathroom scale 












_jjl 




Sh 


5.28 


5.03 


5.25 


5.39 


0.i6*t> 


0.92*** 




Tr 


4.53 


5.90 


4.65 


6.11 


0.05 


1.50*** 




Tx 
2. TV Remote Control 


4.35 


5.81 


5.02 


5.65 


-0.44 


0.95*** 




Sh 


5.24 


5.26 


5.34 


5.37 


-0.00 


0.68** 




Tr 


4.03 


5.18 


5.48 


6.66 


-0.03 


■j^ yy*** 




Tx 


5.41 


5.18 


5.23 


5.66 


0.31+ 


0.77** 




3. Flashlight 
















Sh 


5.61 


495**a 


4.90* 


5.02* 


0.42* 


0.70** 




Tr 


5.07 


4.70+ 


4.69* 


5.00 


0.34** 


0.69** 




Tx 


5.42 


4.26** 


4.16** 


5.68 


1 24*** 


1.83*** 




4. Lamp 
















Sh 


5.59 


5.43 


5.03* 


5.08+ 


0.08 


0.53** 


1 


Tr 


4.39 


4.84 


5.53 


5.82 


-0.09 


1.26*** 




Tx 


4.23 


5.39 


4.87 


6.45 


0.19 


1.91*** 




5. Refrigerator 
















Sh 


6.02 


3.97*** 


4.45*** 


5.03** 


1.33*** 


-^ 24*** 




Tr 


5.24 


4.73* 


4.58* 


5.66 


0.79*** 


1.46*** 




Tx 


6.36 


^Y^*** 


4.85*** 


5.25** 


1.00*** 


0.85*** 


i 


6. Telephone 
















Sh 


5.55 


4.71** 


4.85** 


4.77** 


0.36* 


0.37* 




Tr 


5.23 


5.34 


4.79* 


4.56** 


-0.17 


0.06 




Tx 


5.55 


5.33 


5.13* 


5.89 


0.53** 


1 



70 



TABLE III - 13 - continued 
MEAN QUALITY RATINGS AND UNITY SCORES 



Product 


(++) 


(+-) 


(-+) 


(--) 


Ut, 


Un 


7. Hair dryer 
Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


6.39 
4.40 
5.82 


5.39** 

5.08 

4.00*** 


4.57*** 

5.22 

4.03*** 


4.59*** 

5.63 

5.81 


0.50** 
-0.18 

1.77*** 


0.48* 

0.82** 

2.05*** 


8. Dresser 














Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


5.05 
4.81 
5.18 


5.29 

4.34* 
4.70* 


5.26 

4.32* 

4.75 


5.95 
6.52 
5.64 


0.22* 

1,29*** 

0.63** 


1.32*** 

2.38*** 
1 44*** 


9. Clock 














Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


5.13 
4.64 

4.87 


3.53*** 

4.10** 

3.98*** 


3 y4*:(t!|! 

4.20* 
4.19** 


4.84 
4.61 
4.74 


1.32*** 

0.43* 

0.73*** 


1.57*** 

0.69** 

0.92*** 


Total'^ 


5.16 


4.86*** 


4.78*** 


5.46 


0.48*** 


1.12*** 



b 

c 

** 

+ 



Indicates that the difference for a change in a feature from prototypical 

to atypical was significant based on the t-statistic computed for each 

product/transformation pair. 

Indicates unity score is significantly different from zero. 

Statistical significance based on ANOVA results reported in the text. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .001 in one-tailed-tests. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .01 in one-tailed-tests. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .05 in one-tailed-tests. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .1 in one-tailed-tests. 



71 



TABLE III - 14 





MEAN PRICE RATINGS AND UNITY SCORES 


Product 


(++) 


(+-) 


(-+) 


(-) 


Ut 


Um 


1. Bathroom scale 












lil 




Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


4.42 
3.53 
3.66 


4.57 
5.09 
5.74 


4.86 
3.79 
4.38 


4.93 
5.38 
5.36 


-0.04 

0.01 

-0.55 


1.02*** 
1.65*** 
1.11*** 




2. TV Remote Control 
















Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


4.38 
3.80 
4.62 


5.22 
4.89 
4.92 


5.08 
4.84 
4.85 


5.56 
6.56 
5.55 


-0.18 

-0.31 

0.21 


0.91*** 
2.08*** 
1.03*** 




3. Flashlight 
















Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


4.49 
4.62 
4.34 


4.89 

4.33+^ 

4.14 


5.21 
4.68 
4.17 


5.46 
4.57 
5.09 


-0.10 
0.06 
0.55**^ 


0.91*** 

0.47* 
2 2^7*** 




4. Lamp 
















Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


4.45 
3.53 
3.80 


4.95 
4.52 
4.82 


5.10 
4.95 
4.49 


5.27 

5.28 

5.74 


-0.13 

-0.32 

0.07 


0.90*** 
1.05*** 
1.54*** 




5. Refrigerator 
















Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


5.58 
5.07 
5.50 


4.81* 
4.84 

4.58** 


4.66** 
4.93 

4.87* 


5.89 
6.25 
5.10 


0.99** 

0.72*** 

0.57** 


1.48*** 
1.69*** 

0.77** 




6. Telephone 














1 
1 


Sh 
Tr 


5.26 
4.85 
5.63 


5.11 
4.97 
5.34 


5.03 

4.25** 

5.01** 


5.84 
4.33 
6.14 


0.44** 

0.03 

0.69** 


1.18*** 

0.28* 

1.30*** 



72 



TABLE III - 14 - continiifiH 
MEAN PRICE RATINGS AND UNITY SCORES 




Product 


(++) 


(+-) 


(-+) 


(--) 


Ut, 


% 


7. Hair dryer 














Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


5.17 
3.91 
5.03 


4.58** 

4.67 

4.44* 


3.92** 

4.72 
4.21** 


4.28** 
5.58 

5.87 


0.45** 

0.05 

1.08*** 


0.75** 

1.15*** 

1.82*** 


8. Dresser 














Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


4.30 
4.39 
4.65 


4.67 
4.10 
4.42 


5.39 
4.36 
4.80 


5.98 
6.33 
5.32 


0.11 

1.08*** 

0.31* 


1.62*** 

2.25*** 
1.14*** 


9. Clock 














Sh 
Tr 
Tx 


4.61 
3.90 
4.09 


3.09*** 

3.33** 

3.20** 


3.31*** 

3.52+ 

3.44** 


4.39 
3.92 
3.94 


1.24*** 

0.46** 

0.68** 


1.51*** 

0.71** 

0.88*** 


Total'^ 


4.50 


4.60'= 


4.55 


5.33 


0.29*** 


1.19*** 



b 

c 

+ 



Indicates that the difference for a change in a feature from prototypical 

to atypical was significant based on the t-statistic computed for each 

product/transformation pair. 

Indicates unity score is significantly different from zero. 

Statistical significance based on ANOVA results reported in the text. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .001 in one-tailed-tests. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .01 in one-tailed-tests. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .05 in one-tailed-tests. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .1 in one-tailed-tests. 



73 
products" and thus relate novelty (atypicality) in general to the higher prices 
associated with such products. 

The analysis of variance results for Hking, quaHty, and price are 
reported in Table III-15 to Table III-23. For all three of the derived responses 
there was a significant effect of unity. In the case of attitude (i. e., Hking 
ratings) the effect of unity (i. e., Factor A x Factor B interaction) was highly 
significant across all three variations of the dependent measure: rating scores 
F (1,185) = 378.04, p < 0.0001; Linear unity scores F (1,185) = 378.04, p < 
.0001; and pure-unity score F (1,188) = 530.00, p < .0001. That aesthetic 
responses would have a strong influence on attitudes is not too surprising since 
many conceptuahzations of attitude maintain that attitudes contain an 
affective component or that affective responses are antecedents of attitudes 
(Ajzen 1989; Edwards 1990). The effect of unity on (perceived) quality was not 
as strong as it was for liking but it was still significant except in the analysis 
that utiHzed nonlinear unity scores where it was marginally significant: rating 
scores F (1,179) = 83.54, p < .0001; linear unity scores F (1,179) = 83.54, p < 
.0001; nonlinear unity scores F (1,188) = 3.74, p < .0545. The effect of unity 
on ratings of price was significant across all the dependent measure variations: 
rating scores F (1,179) = 57.67; linear unity scores F (1,179) = 57.67, p < .0001; 
nonlinear unity scores F (1,188) = 398.57, p < .0001. 

Once again, the patterns of interactions observed among Products, 
Transformation type, and Order for these derived responses were the same as 



74 



TABLE III- 15 
ANALYSIS OF VAEIANCE FOR LIKING DEPENDENT MEASURE 

RATING SCORE APPROACH 



Source 



Between Subject Effects 



Version 
Order 

Version * Order 
Error Sub (Version * Order) 



Within Subject Effects 



Product 
Trans 

Prod * Version (Residual) 
Prod * Order 
Trans * Order 
Prod * Version * Order 
(Residual) 
Error Sub (Product) 



Feature A 
A * Version 
A * Order 

A * Version * Order 
Error Sub (A) 



Feature B 
B * Version 
B * Order 

B * Version * Order 
Error Sub (B) 



A*B 

A * B * Version 
A * B * Order 
A * B * Version * Order 
Error Sub (A * B) 



Prod * A * B 
Prod * A * B * Version 
Prod * A * B * Order 
Prod * A * B * Version * 
Order 
Error Sub (Prod * A * B) 



DF 



2 

1 

2 

185 



8 

2 
14 

8 

2 

14 
1480 



1 
2 
1 

2 
185 



1 
2 
1 
2 
185 



1 
2 
1 

2 
185 



8 
16 

8 

16 
1480 



Type III SS 



46.0270 

27.3070 

124.4730 

2571.1570 



1223.6860 

166.7490 

547.9980 

141.8833 

7.1283 

42.2361 

5550.5546 



350.7149 

439.3120 

21.8458 

14.4999 

1327.7566 



136.4246 

154.4816 

36.0534 

25.8407 

1037.9498 



2954.8430 

95.1822 

3.3147 

8.7269 

1446.0027 



1289.1620 

895.3401 

81.3623 

74.3545 
4178.2312 



F-Value 



1.66 
1.96 

4.48 



40.79 

22.23 

10.44 

4.73 

0.95 

0.80 



48.87 

30.61 

3.04 

1.01 



24.32 

13.77 

6.43 

2.30 



378.04 
6.09 
0.42 
0.56 



57.08 

19.82 

3.60 

1.65 



P>F 



0.1937 
0.1627 
0.0126 



0.0001 
0.0001 
0.0001 
0.0001 
0.2500 
0.2500 



0.0001 
0.001 
0.0827 
0.3662 



0.0001 
0.0001 
0.0121 
0.1028 



0.0001 
0.0027 
0.5157 
0.5732 



0.0001 
0.0001 
0.0004 
0.0509 



75 



TART TT" TTT 1 a 
ANALYSIS OF VAEIANCE FOR LIKING DEPENDENT MEASUT?F 
LINEAR UNITY SCORE APPROACH ^^^™^ 



Source 



DF 



Between Subject Effects 



Type III SS F-Value 



P>F 



Intercept 
Version 
Order 

Version * Order 
Error Sub (Version * Order) 



1 
2 
1 
2 
185 



11819.3718 

380.7288 

13.2590 

34.9076 

5784.0106 



Within Subject Effects 



378.04 
6.09 
0.42 
0.56 



0.0001 
0.0027 
0.5157 
0.5732 



Product 
Trans 

Prod * Version (Residual) 
Prod * Order 
Trans * Order 

Prod * Version * Order (Residual) 
Error Sub (Prod) 



8 
2 

14 
8 
2 

14 
1480 



5156.6480 

537.0898 

3044.2706 

325.4491 

32.1250 

265.2929 

16712.9249 



57.08 

23.78 

19.26 

3.60 

1.42 

1.67 



0.0001 
0.0001 
0.0001 
0.0004 
0.2500 
0.1000 



were discussed for aesthetic response. Individual t-tests for each of the 
stimulus sets for all three of the derived responses were conducted to ensure 
that the effect of unity was significant and in the proper direction across 
stimulus sets (refer to Tables III-12, 13, and 14). 

The three hypotheses concerning the influence of aesthetic response on 
derived responses all seem to be supported. The products that received higher 
beauty or aesthetic ratings (i. e., products exhibiting unity) also received higher 
ratings for Hidng, quality, and price than did products that received lower 
aesthetic ratings (i. e., products that did not exhibit unity). Although there 
seems to be a reduction in the magnitude of the effect of the unity design 
factor on the derived responses of perceived quality and expected price (as 
compared with attitudes) the findings do seem to provide evidence that design 



76 



TABLE III - 1 7 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR LIKING DEPENDENT MFAQTtrt? 

NONLINEAR UNITY DIFFERiifcE ScSrE ^pIS^^^ 



Source 



Between Subiect Effects 



Intercept 
Version 
Order 

Version * Order 
Error Sub (Version * Order) 



Within Subiect Effects 



Product 
Trans 

Prod * Version (Residual) 
Prod * Order 
Trans * Order 

Prod * Version * Order (Residual) 
Error Sub (Prod) 



DF 



1 
2 

1 

2 

188 



8 
2 

14 
8 
2 

14 
1504 



Type III SS j F-Value 



5141.7559 

428.1894 

12.1427 

41.8216 

1823.8659 



530.00 

22.07 

1.25 

2.16 



352.3060 
143.3854 
506.0161 
146.6168 
52.9295 
100.1989 
6971.6544 



9.50 
15.47 
7.80 
3.95 
5.71 
1.54 



P>F 



0.0001 
0.0001 
0.2647 
0.1187 



0.0001 
0.0001 
0.0001 
0.0001 
0.0100 
0.1000 



factors may indirectly influence "non-aesthetic" product evaluations by 
of aesthetic response. 



means 



77 



1 
! 

1 

1 
1 

1 


TABLE III - 1 8 
ANALYSIS OF -^^.CE^FOR^QU^TY DEPENDENT MEASUKE 




Source 


DF 


Type III SS 


F-Value 


P > F 


1 


Between Subiect Effect.^ 






Version 
Order 

Version * Order 
Error Sub (Version * Order) 


2 

1 

2 

179 


9.127 

1.608 

32.987 

2098.955 


0.39 
0.14 
1.41 


0.6782 
0.7116 
0.2477 


Within Subiect Effects 






Product 
Trans 

Prod * Version (Residual) 
Prod * Order 
Trans =*= Order 

Prod * Version * Order (Residual) 
Error Sub (Product) 


8 

2 
14 

8 

2 

14 
1432 


460.3010 

8.4585 

97.9144 

84.6168 

0.8922 

102.4896 

5170.5778 


15.94 
1.17 
1.94 
2.93 
0.12 
2.03 


0.0001 
0.2500 
0.0250 
0.0030 
0.2500 
0.0250 


Feature A 
A * Version 
A * Order 

A * Version * Order 
Error Sub (A) 


1 
2 
1 
2 
179 


19.6599 

111.1728 

7.9716 

0.4826 

794.7515 


4.43 

12.52 

1.80 

0.50 


0.0368 
0.0001 
0.1820 
0.9471 


Feature B 
B * Version 
B * Order 

B * Version * Order 
Error Sub (B) 


1 
2 
1 
2 
179 


57.4549 

81.5176 

0.5777 

10.9047 

675.6261 


15.22 

10.80 

0.15 

1.44 


0.0001 
0.0001 
0.6961 
0.2386 


A*B 

A * B * Version 
A * B * Order 
A * B * Version * Order 
Error Sub (A * B) 


1 
2 
1 
2 
179 


401.5016 

22.2117 

0.0029 

2.0149 

860.2664 


83.54 
2.31 
0.00 
0.21 


0.0001 
0.1021 
0.9804 
0.8111 


Prod * A * B 
Prod * A * B * Version 
Prod * A * B * Order 
Prod * A * B * Version * Order 
Error Sub (Prod * A * B) 


8 
16 

8 

16 
1432 


233.0967 

245.1410 

25.6402 

25.6986 

2702.5612 


15.44 
8.12 
1.70 
0.85 


0.0001 
0.0001 
0.0943 
0.6271 



78 



TABLE III - 1 9 
ANALYSIS OF VAEIANCE FOR QUALITY DEPENDENT MEASURE 

LINEAE UNITY SCORE xji^agukji. 



Source 



Between Subject Effects 



Intercept 
Version 
Order 

Version * Order 
Error Sub (Version * Order) 



Within Subject Effects 



Product 
Trans 

Prod * Version (Residual) 
Prod * Order 
Trans * Order 

Prod * Version * Order (Residual) 
Error Sub (Prod) 



DF 



1 
2 
1 
2 
179 



8 

2 
14 

8 

2 

14 
1432 



Type III SS 



1606.0063 

88.8466 

0.0116 

8.0595 

3441.0657 



932.3869 

172.8437 

807.7205 

102.5606 

12.8424 

89.9521 

10810.2448 



F-Value 



83.54 
2.31 
0.00 
0.21 



15.44 
11.45 
7.64 
1.70 
0.85 
0.85 



P>F 



0.0001 
0.1021 
0.9804 
0.8111 



0.0001 
0.0001 
0.0001 
0.0943 
0.2500 
0.2500 



TABLE III - 20 
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR QUALITY DEPENDENT MEASURE 

NONLINEAR UNITY SCORE 



Source 



Between Subject Effects 



Intercept 
Version 
Order 

Version * Order 
Error Sub (Version * Order) 



Within Subject Effects 

Product 
Trans 

Prod * Version (Residual) 
Prod * Order 
Trans * Order 

Prod * Version * Order (Residual) 
Error Sub (Prod) 



DF 



1 
2 
1 
2 
188 



8 

2 
14 

8 

2 

14 
1504 



Type III SS 



24.6230 

243.5989 

2.4103 

3.1163 

1236.4512 



195.0827 

180.0369 

270.5720 

67.3174 

5.9871 

65.0598 

4635.4572 



F-Value 



3.79 

18.52 

0.37 

0.24 



7.91 
29.21 
6.27 
2.73 
0.97 
1.51 



P>F 



0.0545 
0.0001 
0.5457 
0.7893 



0.0001 
0.0001 
0.0001 
0.0054 
0.2500 
0.1000 



79 



TABLE III - 21 
ANALYSIS OF VA^^CET^^dePENBENT MEASURE 



Source 



Between Subject Effects 



Version 
Order 

Version * Order 
Error Sub (Version * Order) 



Withiii Subject Effects 



Product 
Trans 

Prod * Version (Residual) 
Prod * Order 
Trans * Order 

Prod * Version * Order (Residual) 
Error Sub (Product) 



Feature A 
A * Version 
A * Order 

A * Version * Order 
Error Sub (A) 



Feature B 
B * Version 
B * Order 

B * Version * Order 
Error Sub (B) 



A*B 

A * B * Version 
A * B * Order 
A * B * Version * Order 
Error Sub (A * B) 



Prod * A * B 
Prod * A * B * Version 
Prod * A * B * Order 
Prod * A * B =^ Version * Order 
Error Sub (Prod * A * B) 



DF 



2 

1 

2 

179 



8 

2 
14 

8 

2 

14 
1432 



1 
2 
1 
2 
179 



1 
2 
1 
2 
179 



1 
2 
1 
2 
179 



8 
16 

8 

16 

1432 



Type III SS 



48.662 

28.494 

45.063 

2808.080 



1089.9719 

58.7083 

137.2604 

182.0655 

8.0139 

76.0911 

5112.3283 



250.9383 

83.3609 

1.9605 

4.8154 

799.8424 



321.3547 

130.0014 

2.3247 

11.9936 

668.6915 



193.1558 

26.2598 

0.0024 

4.2203 

599.4864 



200.3073 

129.5848 

9.5617 

27.3044 

2260.7715 



F-Value 



1.55 
1.82 
1.44 



38.16 
8.22 
2.75 
6.37 
1.12 
1.52 



56.16 
9.33 
0.44 
0.54 



86.02 

17.40 

0.62 

1.61 



57.67 
3.92 
0.00 
0.63 



15.86 
5.13 
0.76 
1.08 



P>F 



0.2149 
0.1795 
0.2405 



0.0001 
0.0010 
0.0001 
0.0001 
0.2500 
0.1000 



0.0001 
0.0001 
0.5086 
0.5844 



0.0001 
0.0001 
0.4312 
0.2037 



0.0001 
0.0216 
0.9785 
0.5337 



0.0001 
0.0001 
0.6409 
0.3680 



80 



TABLE III - 22 
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR PRICE DEPENDENT MEASURE 

LINEAR UNITY SCORE 



Soiirce 


DF 


Type III SS 


F-Value 


P>F 


Between Subiect Effects 




Intercept 


1 


772.6232 


57.67 


0.0001 


Version 


2 


105.0393 


3.92 


0.0216 


Order 


1 


0.0098 


0.00 


0.9785 


Version * Order 


2 


16.8810 


0.63 


0.5337 


Error Sub (Version * Order) 


179 


2397.9457 






Within Subiect Effects 




Product 


8 


801.2291 


15.86 


0.0001 


Trans 


2 


24.3032 


1.92 


0.2500 


Prod * Version (Residual) 


14 


494.0359 


5.59 


0.0010 


Prod * Order 


8 


38.2466 


0.76 


0.6409 


Trans * Order 


2 


1.6577 


0.13 


0.2500 


Prod * Version * Order (Residual) 


14 


107.5598 


1.22 


0.2500 


Error Sub (Prod) 


1432 


9043.0861 







TABLE III - 23 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR PRICE DEPENDENT MEASURE 

NONLINEAR UNITY SCORE 



Source 


DF 


Type III SS 


F-Value 


P>F 1 


Between Subiect Effects 


Intercept 


1 


2557.21486 


398.57 


0.0001 


Version 


2 


188.1044 


14.66 


0.0001 


Order 


1 


7.6367 


1.19 


0.2767 


Version * Order 


2 


0.9127 


0.07 


0.9314 


Error Sub (Version * Order) 


188 


1206.1973 






Within Subiect Effects 


Product 


8 


89.9727 


4.40 


0.0001 


Trans 


2 


3.6682 


0.71 


0.2500 


Prod * Version (Residual) 


14 


86.8686 


2.43 


0.0100 


Prod * Order 


8 


39.4494 


1.93 


0.0519 


Trans * Order 


2 


8.2444 


1.61 


0.2500 


Prod * Version * Order (Residual) 


14 


47.5262 


1.33 


0.2500 


Error Sub (Prod) 


1504 


3842.0345 







81 
Summary 
Overall, the results strongly support the hypothesis of a positive effect 
of unity on aesthetic responses (i. e., HI). The Factor A and Factor B 
interaction (i. e., unity main effect) was significant and this was shown to be 
the case across product categories and across three different types of product 
transformations. An effect of prototypicality (H2) on aesthetic response was 
indicated, but there was not support for the moderate schema incongruity 
hypotheses (H3 and H4). 

The favorable aesthetic responses generated by consistency with the 
unity visual organization principle was shown to carry over into subjects' 
attitudes, perceptions of quahty, and price expectations for products (i. e., H7, 
H8, and H9). The Feature A x Feature B interaction was significant for all 
three derived responses. In addition, unity was shown to influence subjects' 
feehngs of famiharity (i. e., perceived famiharity). Although not predicted, a 
novelty effect on price expectations seemed to be indicated by the results (H5). 
These results are summarized in Figure 111-4. In Figure III-4 it can be seen 
that the Unity/Atypical product (--) is always rated higher than the Non- 
unity/Atypical products [Note: MAX refers to the more highly rated of the two 
Non-unity/Atypical products and MIN refers to the Non-unity/Atypical product 
that received the lowest ratings] . 

These results clearly suggest that the unity design factor can 
significantly influence both aesthetic responses and non-aesthetic product 
evaluations and thus play an important role in determining consumer 
behavior. The rephcation across the nine product categories demonstrates that 
the effects observed are quite robust. Furthermore, the ability to produce 



82 
these effects using three very different types of (product) transformations 
underscores the fact that unity can (and does) have broad appHcation as a 
design factor. 



83 




(++) (MAX) (MIN) 

Unity/Prototypicality 



(--) 



"■ Beauty 

~^ Familiarity 

"♦ Liking 

-^ Quality 

-^ Price 



FIGURE III-4 
MEAN AESTHETIC AND DERIVED RESPONSES 



CHAPTER IV 
EXPERIMENT 2 



Overview 
Experiment 1 investigated the effects of unity and prototypicality on 
aesthetic and derived responses by presenting subjects with all four versions 
of a stimulus set simultaneously and asking them to rate the versions on 
semantic differential scales that measured the constructs of interest. This 
experiment is a between-subjects replication of Experiment 1 in which subjects 
evaluate only one design from each stimulus set. In this study, product 
versions were evaluated without the context of other product versions from the 
same product category. The between-subjects design of this experiment also 
serves to reduce the possible demand artifacts that maybe involved in a within- 
subjects experimental design that tests the influence of unity and 
prototypicality on aesthetic responses, attitudes, quahty perceptions, and price 
expectations. 

Experimental Desig ;n 
A sub-set of the stimuli that were employed in Experiment 1 were used 
m this experiment. One transformation was chosen from each product 
category. The chosen transformation was the one with the strongest linear 

84 



85 
unity score effect in Experiment 1. Although all nine product categories were 

included, the bathroom scales stimulus set was omitted from subsequent 
analyses for two reasons. First, this simplified the analyses of the results. 
Second, this stimulus set was the only reversal of the unity effect observed in 
Experiment 1. Each product category was represented and an effort was made 
to select an equal number of each of the three types of manipulations (i. e., 
shape, texture, and trim). The nine stimulus sets that were employed were the 
bathroom scale/texture^, T. V. Remote Control/trim, flashlight/trim, lamp/ 
texture, refrigerator/shape, telephone/shape, hair dryer/texture, dresser/trim, 
and clock/shape. 

The overall design of the experiment was a 2(Feature A) x 2(Feature B) 
X 8(Products) mixed factorial design. Just as in the first experiment the 
manipulation of Features A and B resulted in the manipulation of 
prototypicality and unity. In this experiment, however, each cell of the crossed 
Feature A and B factors [i. e., product versions: Unity/Prototypical (++), Non- 
Unity/Atypical (+-), Non-Unity/Atypical (-+), Unity/Atypical (-)] was contained 
in one of four questionnaire versions. That is, each questionnaire contained 
all eight product categories (and the extra product); each subject received one 



This product had proven to be problematic in Experiment 1 but was 
included for the purpose of maintaining continuity between the product 
presentations of the two experiments. 



86 
of four questionnaire versions and each questionnaire version contained one 

cell (i. e., product variation, e. g., Unity/Prototypical) of the 2(Feature A)x 
2(Feature B) manipulation from each of the product categories (see Appendix 
D for a diagram of this design). The product versions (e. g., Unity/Prototypical) 
were distributed evenly throughout the four versions of the questionnaire. 
Although the three types of transformations were represented across the eight 
stimulus sets, transformation type was not treated as a factor in this design. 
The order in which the stimulus products were presented was reversed for half 
of the subjects. 

Experimental Procedure 
Two-hundred and forty volunteer subjects enrolled in the Introductory 
Marketing course at the University of Florida participated in this experiment. 
The procedure for this experiment was the same as the procedure for 
Experiment 1 except that in each of the four questionnaire versions subjects 
saw and rated only one version of each product for each of the eight stimulus 
sets. The dependent measures were the same measures that were used in 
Experiment 1. 



87 



Results and Discussion 
The manipulation check for the effects of a change in either Feature A 
or Feature B on aesthetic responses indicated that, as expected, there was an 
overall reduction in the ratings of product appearance as compared with the 
prototypical product version. The average effect of a change in either of these 
features was weaker than they were in Experiment 1 with the average effect 
of a change in Feature A being -.425 and Feature B -.281. The effect of a 
change in Feature A or Feature B from the category prototype for all eight 
stimulus sets are shown in Table IV-1. In four of the eight cases the change 



TABLE IV - 1 



MANIPULATION CHECK 


Product 


Feature A 


Feature B 


1. T.V. Remote - Tr 


- 0.001 


0.343 


2. Flashlight - Tr 


0.096 


- 0.059 


3. Lamp - Tx 


- 0.862 


- 0.414 


4. Refrigerator - Sh 


- 1.352 


- 0.827 


5. Telephone - Sh 


- 0.687 


- 0.327 


6. Hair dryer - Tx 


- 0.488 


- 0.798 


7. Dresser - Tr 


- 0.171 


0.019 


8. Clock - Sh 


0.064 


- 0.182 


Mean effect of change across 
products 


-0.425 


- 0.281 



88 
of either Feature A or Feature B resulted in a lower beauty rating. The effects 

of a change in the product features were mixed for the remaining four stimulus 
sets. Of these four mixed-effects stimulus sets only one (T. V. remote - trim) 
is consistent with the manipulation check results of Experiment 1. The fact 
that in three instances feature manipulations that had resulted in a reduction 
of beauty ratings in Experiment 1 resulted in slightly increased ratings in 
Experiment 2 would seem to indicate that the strength of the manipulations 
is, not surprisingly, affected by the context of other product variations (i. e., 
whether or not the products being rated can be compared to other product 
variations or brands). 

The Influence of Unity and Prototvpicaht y on Aesthetic and Derived Rf^.^p nn«P« 
As was the case in Experiment 1, the critical tests concerning the 
influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic and derived responses 
involves the Feature A x Feature B interaction (i. e., a main effect of unity). 
A significant Feature A x Feature B interaction across products would indicate 
that changes of product features that are made in a way that increases unity 
[i. e., Unity/Atypical (-)] lead to more positive aesthetic (and derived) 
responses. Such a result is inconsistent with the prototypicaHty explanation 
of aesthetic response which predicts that product versions that are more 
similar to the category prototype will receive more positive ratings. 



89 
Analysis 

The data were analyzed using a mixed ANOVA with between-subjects 
factors of questionnaire Version and Order. Products was a within-subjects 
factor. The analysis was performed on product ratings since the between- 
subjects design precluded the use of the unity score approaches at the 
individual level. Unity scores (i. e., linear and nonhnear scores) may be 
calculated using the mean product ratings at the aggregate level. However, a 
nonhnear unity score calculated in this way will tend to understate the effect 
of unity since the minimum case (i. e., the lowest rated Non-unity/Atypical 
product variation) may not be the same for each subject. Thus, the minimum 
Non-unity/Atypical mean will not necessarily be an aggregation of subjects' 
nonlinear unity scores. This means that the nonhnear unity scores for this 
between-subjects experiment represent a more conservative test of the 
influence of unity than the nonlinear unity scores in Experiment 1. The more 
conservative nonhnear unity scores reported in this experiment will be 
distinguished from those reported earlier by a prime (') mark. 

Hypothesis Testing 

The means for the beauty ratings for each of the eight stimulus sets are 
presented in Table rV-2. The analysis of variance for factors affecting beauty 
ratings is presented in Table IV-3. The analysis shows that overall the 
interaction between Features A and B was significant, F (1,1610) = 6.4238, 



90 



TABLE rV - 2 
MEANS FOR BEAUTY RATINGS 



Product 


Unity/ 
Typical 

(++) 


Non-Unity/ 
Atypical 

(+-) 


Non-Unity/ 
Atypical 

(-+) 


Unity/ 
At5T)ical 

(--) 


Uj, 


Un' 


1. T. V. Remote - Tr 


4.36 


4.36 


4.70 


3.88 


-0.41 


-0.48 


2. Flashlight - Tr 


4.85 


4.95 


4.79 


5.07 


0.09 


0.28 


3. Lamp - Tx 


5.00 


4. 14.**^ 


4.59** 


4.98 


0.63** 


0.84 


4. ReMgerator - Sh 


4.16 


2.80*** 


3.33* 


3.41 




0.61 


5. Telephone - Sh 


3.97 


3.28 


3.64 


3.62 


0.72** 


0.34 


6. Hair dryer - Tx 


5.23 


4.74* 


4.43 


4.23 


0.35 


-0.20 


7. Dresser - Tr 


4.03 


3.86 


4.05 


4.12 


0.15 


0.26 


8. Clock - Sh 


3.03 


3.10 


2.85 


2.71 


0.12 
-0.11 


-0.14 


Total 


4.33 


3.90*** 


4.05** 


4.00** 


0.19* 


0.19 



a 
b 

* 



Indicates significance from Protot5rpical product. 

Indicates significance of the differences between Unity/Atypical and 

Non-unity/Atypical conditions. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .001. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .01. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .05. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .10. 



p < .025. The Knear unity scores formed from the mean product ratings 
indicated that six of the eight stimulus sets were in the expected direction (i. 
e., positive). The "mean" nonhnear unity scores indicated that five of the eight 
stimulus sets were in the expected direction. Follow-up tests for each product 
indicated that individually only two products were significant [Lamp F(l,233) 
= 8.85, p < .0032; Refrigerator F(l,233) = 7.74, p < .0058]. However, the fact 



91 



TABLE IV - 8 
ANALYSIS OF VAEIANCE FOR BEAUTY DEPENDENT MEASURE 



Source 



DF 



Type III SS 



Between Subject Effects 



F-Value 



P>F 



Version 
Order 

Version * Order 
Error Sub (Version * Order) 



3 

1 

3 

230 



10.8722 

37.9800 

17.0346 

1267.2469 



Within Subject Effects 



0.66 
6.89 
1.03 



0.5788 
0.0092 
0.3798 



Product 
Feature A 
Feature B 
A*B 

Prod * Version 
Prod * Order 
A * Order 
B * Order 
A * B * Order 
Prod * Version * Order 
Error Sub (Product) 



7 
1 
1 
1 

18 
7 
1 
1 
1 

18 
1610 



814.4207 

4.0309 

26.6562 

17.5812 

105.3644 

42.3589 

0.6343 

1.7413 

2.7135 

51.2698 

4406.5316 



42.51 
1.47 
9.73 
6.42 
2.13 
2.24 
0.23 
0.64 
0.99 
1.04 



0.0001 
0.2500 
0.0100 
0.0250 
0.0100 
0.0285 
0.2500 
0.2500 
0.2500 
0.2500 



that this interaction was significant for the analysis of all the products 
indicates that consistency with the unity visual organization principle is 
positively related to aesthetic response. 

The ANOVA for the ratings of product beauty also indicates that there 
were significant effects of Order and Product as well as a significant Products 
X Version interaction. These effects were addressed in the discussion of 
Experiment 1 and the explanation of each of them is basically the same for this 
experiment. The effect of Products reflects the differential strengths of the 
Feature A and Feature B manipulations as they were adapted and applied to 



92 
each product category. An examination of the manipulation check for the 

impact of changes in product features A and B on beauty ratings (refer to 
Table IV- 1) reveals that there are differences in the strength of the 
manipulations across the eight products. This is also reflected in the inter- 
action between Products and Version (i. e., cells of the crossed feature A and 
B "factors" of the design; e. g., Unity/Prototypical). 

There were also significant order effects [Order F(l,230) = 6.89, p < 
.0092; Product * Order F(7,1610) = 2.24, p < .0285]. An examination of the 
means for products for each of the presentation orders suggests that as in 
Experiment 1, these effects may be attributable to subjects increasing 
acceptance of the use of simple drawings to depict products. 

Derived Responses 

The influence of unity and prototypicality on attitude, quality 
perceptions, and price expectations was also examined. The means for the 
liking, quality, and price ratings are presented in Table rV-4, Table IV-5, and 
Table IV-6, respectively. The patterns exhibited for the liking and quaHty 
means are very similar to the pattern exhibited by the beauty means that were 
presented in the preceding section. Interestingly, the pattern for the overall 
means for price expectations were similar to those observed in Experiment 1 
with the Unity/Atypical (-) product versions being the most highly rated and 
the Unity/Prototypical (++) product versions being the lowest rated product. 



93 



TABLE IV - 4 
MEANS FOR LIKING RATINGS 



Product 



Unity/ 
Tjrpical 

(++) 



Non-Unity/ 
Atypical 

(+-) 



1. T. V. Remote 

2. Flashlight 

3. Lamp 

4. Refrigerator 

5. Telephone 

6. Hair dryer 

7. Dresser 

8. Clock 



Total 



5.38 
5.63 
5.87 
5.07 
4.50 
6.36 
4.82 
3.24 



5.11 



5.56 

5.76 
497*a 

3.65*** 

3.91 

5.21*** 

4.35 

3.69 



Non-Unity/ 
Atypical 

(-+) 



5.81 

5.60* 

5.16* 

3.90** 

4.47 

5.10 

4.57 

3.56 



Unity/ 
At3rpical 

(--) 



4.63=* 



4.77** 



4.88 

6.12 

5.89 

3.89** 

4.12 

5.20 

4.58 

3.26 



U 



L_ 



-0.56 
0.20 



0.82** 

D 



0.71* 
0.12 
0.63** 
0.24 
-0.38 



U 



IL 



-0.68 
0.52 
0.92* 
0.24 
0.21 
0.10 
0.23 
-0.30 



4.74* 



0.22*** 



0.16 



a 
b 



Indicates significance firom Prototypical product. 

Indicates significance of the differences between Unity/Atypical and 

Non-umty/Atypical conditions. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .001. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .01. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .05. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .10. 



The ANOVAs for the influence of unity and prototypicahty on Hking, quahty, 
and price are presented in Table IV-7, Table IV-8, and Table IV-9, respectively. 
The influence of unity (i. e., the Feature A x Feature B interaction) was 
significant for liking F(l,1617) = 7.04, p < .001, approached significance for 
quality F(l,1603) = 3.17, p < .10, and was not significant for price F (1,1603) 
= .24 p > .25. 



94 



TABLE IV - 5 
MEANS FOR QUALITY RATINGS 



Product 


Unity/ 
Typical 

(++) 


Non-Unity/ 
Atypical 


Non-Unity/ 
Atypical 


Unity/ 
Atypical 

(-) 


Ul 


Um' 


1. T. V. Remote 


5.26 


5.28 


5.50 


5.00 


1 i 

-0.26 


N 

-0.28 


2. Flashlight 


5.13 


5.29 


5.24 


5.13 


-0.14 


-0.11 


3. Lamp 


4.72 


4.33*^ 


4.67 


5.05 


0.39+^ 


0.72 


4. Refrigerator 


4.76 


4.45 


4.09+ 


4.50 


0.36 


0.41 


5. Telephone 


4.72 


4.31* 


4.38* 


5.09 


0.56* 


0.78 


6. Hair dryer 


5.85 


5.47 


5.38 


5.15 


0.08 


-0.23 


7. Dresser 


4.30 


4.03** 


4.33 


5.10 


0.52* 


1.07* 


8. Clock 


2.93 


3.58 


3.34 


3.22 


-0.39 


-0.12 


Total 


4.71 


4.59 


4.62 


4.78 


0.14+ 


0.28 



^ Indicates significance from Prototypical product. 

Indicates significance of the differences between Unity/Atypical and 

Non-unity/Atypical conditions. 
*** Indicates differences significant at p < .001. 
** Indicates differences significant at p < .01. 
* Indicates differences significant at p < .05. 

+ Indicates differences significant at p < .10. 



The Hnear and nonlinear unity scores for liking both indicated that the 
mean product ratings for six of the eight stimulus sets were in the expected 
direction (i. e., positive). Five of the eight stimulus sets displayed positive 
Hnear unity scores for quality ratings. Four of the nonlinear unity scores 
formed fi-om the mean product ratings were positive. Although the unity 
scores for the price ratings indicated that five of the linear unity scores and 



six 



95 



TABLE IV - 6 
MEANS FOR PRICE RATINGS 



Product 



1. T. V. Remote 

2. Flashlight 

3. Lamp 

4. Refrigerator 

5. Telephone 

6. Hair dryer 

7. Dresser 

8. Clock 



Unity/ 
Typical 

(++) 



Total 



4.31 
3.80 
3.51 
5.05 
4.88 
4.57 
4.18 
2.19 



Non-Unity/ 
Atypical 



4.06 



4.71 
3.93 
3.59 
5.30 
5.31 
4.67 
4.17 
2.68 



Non-Unity/ 
Atypical 

(-+) 



4.29 



4.95 
3.83 
3.72 
4.92 
4.75 
4.29 
4.19 
2.61 



Unity/ 
At3T)ical 

(--) 



4.16 



4.33 
4.03 
4.03 
5.02 
5.55 
4.64 
4.50 
2.45 



U 



L_ 



4.32 



-0.51 
0.04 
0.12 

-0.08 
0.19 
0.13 
0.16 

-0.33 



U 



Ji- 



-0.04 



-0.38 
0.20 
0.44 
0.10 
0.80 
0.35 
0.33 
-0.16 



0.21 



a 
b 






Indicates significance from Prototypical product. 

Indicates significance of the differences between Unity/Atypical and 

Non-unity/Atypical conditions. 

Indicates that the atypical condition was rated more favorably than the 

prototypical condition at the p < .05 level. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .001. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .01. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .05. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .10. 



of the nonlinear unity scores were positive, these scores reflect the influence 
of the high ratings received by the Unity/Atypical product variations. Across 
the eight stimulus sets the Unity/Prototypical product variations tended to 
receive price ratings that were lower than those received by the Non- 
Unity/Atypical product variations. This pattern (i. e., novelty effect) is 
consistent with the results reported for Experiment 1. Follow-up tests for each 



96 



TABLE IV - 7 
ANALYSIS OF VAEIANCE FOR LIKING DEPENDENT MEASURE 



Source 



DF 



Type III SS 



Between Subject Effects 



F-Value 



P>F 



Version 
Order 

Version * Order 
Error Sub (Version * Order) 



3 

1 

3 

231 



34.3446 

38.0624 

95.6050 

2077.8006 



Within Subject Effects 



1.27 
4.23 
3.54 



0.2844 
0.0408 
0.0154 



Product 
Feature A 
Feature B 
A*B 

Prod * Version 
Prod * Order 
A * Order 
B * Order 
A * B * Order 

Prod * Version * Order (Residual) 
Error Sub (Product) 



7 
1 
1 
1 

18 
7 
1 
1 
1 

18 
1617 



1162 

6 

30 

24 

160 

24 

0, 

0, 

14. 

72 

5626 



.2629 
.2858 
.7590 
4887 
0874 
8918 
6051 
4279 
6689 
1990 
2035 



47.72 
1.81 
8.84 
7.04 
2.56 
1.02 
0.17 
0.12 
4.22 
1.15 



0.0001 
0.2500 
0.0100 
0.0010 
0.2500 
0.4135 
0.2500 
0.2500 
0.0500 
0.2500 



product indicated that individually three products were significant for the 
influence of unity on hking [Lamp F(l,234) = 9.26, p < .0026; Refrigerator 
F(l,234) = 4.84 p< .0287; Hair dryer F(l,234) = 6.96, p < .0089, and T. V. 
Remote was marginally significant F(l,234) = 3.57, p < .0602], two products 
were significant for the influence of unity on quality [Telephone F(l,231) = 
5.40, p < .0210; Dresser F(l,232) = 4.36, p < .0378; and Lamp was marginally 
significant F(l,232) = 3.20, p < .0747], and none of the products was significant 
with respect to the influence of unity on price. Once again, significant effects 



97 



TABLE IV - 8 
ANALYSIS OF VARLy^^CE FOR QUALITY DEPENDENT MEASURE 



Source 



DF 



Type III SS 



Between Subject Effects 



F-Value 



P>F 



Version 
Order 

Version * Order 
Error Sub (Version * Order) 



3 

1 

3 

229 



Within Subject Effects 



31.9286 

52.2380 

26.4376 

1127.2916 



2.16 

10.61 

1.79 



0.0933 
0.0013 
0.1498 



Product 
Feature A 
Feature B 
A*B 

Prod * Version 
Prod * Order 
A * Order 
B * Order 
A * B * Order 

Prod * Version * Order (Residual) 
Error Sub (Product) 



7 
1 
1 
1 

18 
7 
1 
1 
1 

18 
1603 



783.7063 

1.0528 

0.2176 

9.5530 

83.3248 

21.0434 

2.7504 

7.1185 

17.3136 

50.2271 

4829.7360 



37.16 
0.35 
0.07 
3.17 
1.54 
1.00 
0.91 
2.36 
5.75 
0.93 



0.0001 
0.2500 
0.2500 
0.1000 
0.1000 
0.4310 
0.2500 
0.2500 
0.0250 
0.2500 



of Products and Order were observed as well as the significant interaction of 
Products and Version. 

Although the effect of unity on quality and price was not significant in 
this case, these findings concerning derived responses are consistent with the 
findings reported in Experiment 1. In Experiment 1 there also seemed to be 
a reduction in the magnitude of the effect of the unity design factor on 
perceived quality and expected price. This reduction in the effect, coupled with 
the reduced influence of unity due to the removal of the context provided by 



98 



TABLE IV - 9 
ANALYSIS OF VAEIANCE FOR PRICE DEPENDENT MEASURE 



Source 



DF 



Type III SS 



Between Subject Effects 



F-Value 



P>F 



Version 
Order 

Version * Order 
Error Sub (Version * Order) 



3 

1 

3 

229 



11.7739 

11.2379 

17.6058 

1169.4883 



Within Subject Effects 



0.77 
2.20 
1.15 



0.5127 
0.1393 
0.3301 



Product 
Feature A 
Feature B 
A*B 

Prod * Version 
Prod * Order 
A * Order 
B * Order 
A * B * Order 

Prod * Version * Order (Residual) 
Error Sub (Product) 



7 


1224.6204 


1 


1.6873 


1 


18.6191 


1 


0.5761 


18 


43.3833 


7 


64.1632 


1 


0.0001 


1 


0.1359 


1 


0.3289 



18 
1603 



49.1493 
3794.1377 




0.0001 
0.2500 
0.0100 
0.2500 
0.2500 
0.0003 
0.2500 
0.2500 
0.2500 
0.2500 



having all versions appear on the same page, could explain the lack of a 
significant unity effect for quality and price. ^^ rpj^^ alternative explanation, 
that the absence of a comparative context increases the importance of 



12 

Partial omega squares (Keppel 1991, p. 223) were calculated in order to 

estimate the magnitude of the unity effect. The partial omega squares 

for the effect of unity on beauty ratings for Experiment 1 were .31 for 

the rating score and Ul approaches and .37 for the U^r score approach. 

The partial omega square for the effect of unity on ratings of product 

beauty for Experiment 2 was .006. Although these estimates indicate 

that the effect of unity is quite large in Experiment 1 and very small in 

Experiment 2, care should be taken in interpreting the importance of 

these effects. See Keppel (1991, pp. 66-68 and 224) for discussions 

concerning the importance of small effects and the difficulty of 

comparing the sizes of omega squared estimates. 



99 
prototypicality, seems unlikely since, if that were true, both of the non- 
unity/atypical (+-, -+) conditions should always be rated higher than the unity 
atypical (--) condition and that was not the case. 

Perceived Familiarity 

The relationship between unity and perceived famiharity was also 
examined in this experiment. The means for the famiharity ratings for each 
of the eight stimulus sets are presented in Table IV-10. The analysis of 
variance for the influence of unity on perceived prototypicaHty is presented in 
Table IV-11. In addition to the significant Product and Version (Residual) 
effects that have been discussed in the previous two sections, there is a 
significant interaction of Feature A and Feature B which suggests that unity 
can encourage feelings of perceived familiarity, F (1,1610) = 28.76, p < .001. 
The unity scores for the familiarity ratings indicated that five of the linear 
scores and six of the nonhnear unity scores were in the hypothesized direction. 
Follow-up tests conducted to examine the effect of unity on perceived famil- 
iarity for individual products indicated that the Refrigerator F(l,233 = 33.17, 
p < .001), Telephone F(l,232) = 5.14,p < .0242), and Clock F(l,232 = 3.29, p < 
.0709) were significant. Perceived familiarity may be particularly influenced 
by product shape since all three of these stimulus sets utilized the shape 
transformation. These results build on those of Experiment 1 to suggest that 



100 



TABLE IV - 10 
MEANS FOR FAMILIARITY RATINGS 







Non- 


Non- 








Product 


Unity/ 


Unity/ 


Unity/ 


Unity/ 








Typical 


At5T)ical 


AtjT)ical 


Atypical 








(++) 


(+-) 


(-+) 


(--) 


Ut, 


Un' 


1. T. V. Remote 


7.93 


7.48 


7.75 


7.97 


0.34 


0.49 


2. Flashlight 


7.56 


7.69 


7.85 


7.72 


-0.13 


0.03 


3. Lamp 


7.84 


7.88 


7.78 


7.13 


-0.35 


-0.65 


4. Refrigerator 


8.45*** 
a 


4.51*** 


5.77*** 


5.93*** 


2.05*** 


1.42** 


5. Telephone 


7.74 


5.31 


6.15 


5.38*** 


0.83** 


0.07** 


6. Hair dryer 


7.85 


7.43 


7.46 


7.62 


0.29 


0.19 


7. Dresser 


7.54 


7.21 


7.27 


6.82 


-0.06 


-0.39 


8. Clock 


8.09 


7.57 


7.70 


8.07 


0.45-f- 


0.50 


Total 


7.87 


6.88*** 


7 22*** 


7.08*** 


0.43*** 


0.21 



a 
b 



Indicates significance from Prototjrpical product. 

Indicates significance of the differences between Unity/Atypical and 

Non-unity/Atypical conditions. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .001. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .01. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .05. 

Indicates differences significant at p < .10. 



101 



TABLE IV - ] 1 
ANALYSIS OF VAEIANCE FOR FAMILLVRITY DEPENDENT MEASURE 



Source 



Between Subject Effects 



Version 
Order 

Version * Order 
Error Sub (Version * Order) 



Within Subject Effects 



Product 
Feature A 
Feature B 
A*B 

Prod * Version 
Prod * Order 
A * Order 
B * Order 
A * B * Order 

Prod * Version * Order (Residual) 
Error Sub (Product) 



DF 



3 

1 

3 

230 



7 

1 

1 

1 
18 

7 

1 

1 

1 

18 
1610 



Type III SS 



121.7994 

20.4949 

24.4360 

3221.0752 



841.7213 

25.0684 

151.9619 

86.7198 

388.4214 

8.7496 

4.3303 

7.4252 

2.2846 

71.5838 

4885.5859 



F-Value 



2.90 
1.46 
0.58 



39.87 
8.31 
50.39 
28.76 
7.16 
0.41 
1.44 
2.46 
0.76 
1.32 



P>F 



0.0358 
0.2276 
0.6276 



0.0001 
0.0100 
0.0010 
0.0010 
0.0010 
0.8938 
0.2500 
0.2500 
0.2500 
0.2500 



perceived familiarity involves more than the recall of the features shared with 
the category prototype. 



Summary 
This experiment further examined the influence of unity and proto- 
typicahty on aesthetic and derived responses. The experiment employed a 
between-subjects design and thus the subjects evaluated the product versions 
without the benefit of the three other versions (i.e., reference points) of the 
stimulus set. The results of this experiment are summarized in Figure IV-1. 



102 
Even though rating product versions without the context of other versions 
reduced the magnitude of the effects, the influence of unity on aesthetic 
responses, attitudes, and perceived famiHarity was still significant. The 
finding that the influence of unity on quality and price is not as strong as it 
is on the other responses is consistent with the findings of Experiment 1. 
Clearly, context (i. e., availability to compare product versions with other 
products in the same product category during the evaluation task) plays a role 
in moderating the influence of factors such as unity, but the findings presented 
here demonstrate that the unity effects are robust and that the influence of 
unity on product evaluations may be pervasive. 



103 




6 -- 




(MAX) (MIN) 

Unity/Prototypicality 



(-) 



""• Beauty 

~^ Familiarity 

""* Liking 

'^ Quality 

-^ Price 



FIGURE IV- 1 
MEAN AESTHETIC AND DERIVED RESPONSES 



CHAPTER V 
EXPERIMENT 3 



Overview 

Experiment 2 examined the influence of unity and prototypicality on 

aesthetic and derived responses when products were evaluated without the 

context of other product versions from the same product category. The 

experiment described in this chapter is a further investigation of the influence 

of product aesthetics on derived responses. In this experiment, subjects are 

provided with written product descriptions as well as drawings of the product 

versions that they are asked to rate. The experiment examines whether or not 

there is a moderating effect of the additional information (i. e., written product 

descriptions) on the influence of unity. It is expected that as in the experiment 

discussed eariier, unity will significantly influence subjects' ratings of products 

even though the evaluation task (i.e., rating product versions on scales 

measuring either liking or quality) does not explicitly require consideration of 

product appearance. In addition to demonstrating the influence of unity on 

derived responses, such a finding would also provide evidence of the 

importance of product aesthetics in general. 



104 



105 
Stimulus Materials 

The same sub-set of product drawings that were employed in 

Experiment 2 were used in this experiment and thus the manipulations of 

unity and prototypicality were the same as before. In this study, however, 

each product version [i. e., "target" product, either Unity/Prototypical (++), 

Unity/Atypical (--), or Non-unity/Atypical (+-)] was shown with a written 

product description and was rated against a "control" product. The control 

product was one of the Non-unity/Atypical product versions with a very 

favorable product description (the Non-unity/Atypical condition for each 

stimulus set that received higher beauty ratings was selected for use as the 

control product). The product descriptions developed for the target products 

were less favorable than the product descriptions for the control products. 

"Strong" (i. e., favorable) product descriptions dominated "weak" (i. e., less 

favorable) product descriptions on two of five or six attributes. The product 

descriptions, which were developed from catalog descriptions of products, were 

pilot tested (without the product drawings) in order to estabhsh that the 

"strong" descriptions were, in fact, perceived as being stronger than the "weak" 

product descriptions. The strong and weak product descriptions are presented 

in Appendix E. 



106 
Experimental Deaig Ti 

The design of this experiment may be thought of as being a 2(product 

description: weak vs. strong) x 3(product appearance: Unity/Prototypical, Non- 

unity/Atypical, Unity/Atypical) x 9(Products).12 The comparison of interest, 

however, involves the differences between the three product appearance 

conditions with the weak product description. Since it is the differences in the 

ratings received by the products that were rated against (i. e., along with) the 

control product with its more favorable product description that are of interest, 

the study is actually a Ktarget product with weak product description) x 

3(product appearance: Unity/Prototypical, Non-unity/Atypical, Unity/Atypical) 

x 9 (Products) mixed design. The basic design of this experiment is shown in 

Figure V - 1. Product appearance was a between-subjects factor on any given 

product but was balanced across each of the three questionnaire versions that 

were administered. Product was a within-subjects factor since each subject did 

rate one of the three possible a product pairings (control -- target) from each 

stimulus set. The dependent measure was either a scale measuring quality 

(High Quality/Low Quality) or a scale measuring general attitude 

(Like/Dislike). Subjects received only one of the two scales for all of the 

products that they rated. (This was to insure that there was no carry-over of 

one scale to the other). The position of the target and control products on each 



13 T 1 ■ 

Inclusion of the bathroom scale stimulus set simplified programming 
for the statistical analysis of this experiment. 



Target Stimulus 
"Weak" Product Description 



107 
Control Stimulus 
"Strong" Product Description 



1 


Unity/Prototypical 

(++) 




Non-Unity/Atypical 

(-+) 
(Control) 


1 

1 

1 

1 










Unity/Atypical 

(--) 




Non-Unity/Atypical 

(-+) 

(Control) 










1 


Non-Unity/Atypical 

(+-) 




Non-Unity/Atypical 

(-+) 
(Control) 



Design: KTarget product) x 3(Unity/Prototypical, Unity/Atypical, 

Non-unity/Atypical) x 9(Products) Mixed Design. 



FIGURE V - 1 
EXPERIMENT 3 



108 
page (left or right side) was reversed for half of the subjects and was balanced 

across questionnaire versions. The order in which the stimulus products (i. e., 

sets of target and control versions) were presented was also reversed for half 

of the subjects and this was confounded with the product position 

manipulation. Thus, the experiment was a Ktarget product with weak product 

description) x 3(Product appearance: Unity/Prototypical, Non-unity/Atypical, 

Unity/Atypical) x 9(Product) x 2(position/order) design that was conducted for 

two dependent measures (quality or liking). 

Experimental Procedure 
Two-hundred and fifty seven subjects participated in this experiment. 
The procedure that was followed was very similar to the procedures employed 
in Experiments 1 and 2 except that in this study subjects were presented with 
two product versions (control and target) on a page and each version was 
accompanied with a product description. All conditions of this design were run 
concurrently. 

Results and Discussion 

It was predicted that the unity aspect of product appearance would 

influence subjects' ratings of products in the same way that it had in earher 

experiments despite the addition of written product information. If this were 

the case, one would expect that the particular product drawings (i. e.. 



109 
appearance conditions: Unity/Prototypical, Non-unity/Atypical, Unity/Atypical) 
that were coupled with the target products (i. e., the weak product 
descriptions) would influence the ratings of the target products.-"-^ 

Analysis 

The design was analyzed using a mixed ANOVA to assess the effects of 
Unity, Product, Order/Position, and their possible interactions. Questionnaire 
Version and Order/Position were between-subjects factors. Subjects' ratings 
of the control products were averaged and used as a covariate in the analysis 
in order to reduce the error due to individual rating differences across subjects. 

Hypothesis Testing 

The critical test for examining whether or not the unity aspect of 
product appearance influences subjects' attitudes toward products and 
perceptions of product quality despite the presence of additional information 
involves the differences between the three target conditions. These conditions 
differ only with respect to the appearance of the product version 
(Unity/Prototypical, Non-unity/Atypical, Unity/Atypical) that is coupled with 
the weak product description. If the results are consistent with the findings 



CoupHng the appearance conditions with the weak product 
descriptions avoids ceiling effects which might otherwise occur if the 
appearance conditions had been coupled with the strong product 
descriptions. 



110 
of the previous two experiments, that is, products that exhibit unity are more 

highly rated than products that do not exhibit unity, then they would support 

the conclusion that the effect of unity on product evaluations is quite robust. 

The means for the liking ratings are presented in Table V - 1 and the 

ANOVA for the effect of unity on subjects' attitudes toward the products is 

presented in Table V - 2. The analysis indicates that there is a significant 

effect of Cell, F (2,960) = 4.52, p < .025, which refers to the three target 

product versions (Unity/Prototypical, Non-unity/Atypical, or Unity/Atypical) 

seen by the subjects in each condition (i. e., questionnaire version) saw. The 

effect of unity is also present in the effect of Version, F(2,120) = 3.43, p < 

.0357), since the product version (i. e., Unity/Prototypical, Non-unity/Atypical, 

and Unity/Atypical) for each product category are contained in the three 

questionnaire versions. Contrasts between the different cells (i. e., product 

versions) of this design indicated that the difference between the mean for the 

Unity/Atypical products (M = 6.06) and the mean for the Non-unity/Atypical 

products (M = 5.67) was significant, F(l,120) = 4.79, p < .0306).^^ Although 

the nonUnear unity scores calculated fi-om the mean product ratings indicated 

that seven of the nine were in the expected (i. e., positive) direction, follow-up 

tests on the individual products indicated that the contrast between the 



15 

The difference between the means for the Unity/Prototypical products 

(M = 5.90) and the Unity/Atypical products (M = 6.06) was not 
significant. 



Ill 









TABLE V - 1 
LIKING 






Product 


Unity/ 
Prototjrpical 


Non-Unity/ 
Atjrpical 


Unity/ 
Atjrpical 


Um' 


1. Bathroom scale 


5.52 


5.86 


6.40 


0.54 




2. T. V. Remote 


6.30 


6.02 


6.40*^ 


0.38 




3. Flashlight 


5.57 


5.49 


5.98 


0.49 




4. Lamp 


6.64 


6.05 


6.19 


0.14 




5. Refrigerator 


5.37 


43g***a 


6.55 


2.19***^ 




6. Telephone 


5.88 


4.74** 


5.40** 


0.66 




7. Hair dryer 


5.79 


7.00 


5.93 


-1.07 




8. Dresser 


6.14 


5.29 


6.00 


0.71 




9. Clock 


5.93 


6.23 


5.71 


-0.52 


Total 


5.90 


5.67** 


6.06 


0.39* 




f Indicates 


significance fi*or 


Q Prototypical p 


roduct. 





Indicates significance of the differences between Unity/Atypical and 

Non-unity/Atypical conditions. 
*** Indicates differences significant at p < .001. 
** Indicates differences significant at p < .01. 
* Indicates differences significant at p < .05. 

+ Indicates differences significant at p < .10. 



112 





ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE - LIKING 




f 
r 

\ 


Source 


DF 


Type III SS 


F-Value 


P>F 


1 
j 


Between Subjects Effects 






Intercept 
Covariate 
Version 

Order and Position 
Version * Order 
Error 


1 
1 
2 
1 
2 
120 


181.0534 
129.7023 

50.1938 
5.0247 

18.5099 
878.9758 


24.72 

17.71 

3.43 

0.69 

1.26 


0.0001 
0.0001 
0.0357 
0.4092 
0.2864 


Cell 

Prod * Version 
Error (Product) 


2 

14 
960 


18.6838 

156.2446 

1984.9216 


4.52 
5.39 


0.0250 
0.0100 


Cell * Order 
Prod * Version * Order 
Error (Product) 


2 

14 
960 


0.1300 

27.1226 

1984.9216 


0.03 
0.94 


0.2500 
0.2500 















Unity/Atypical and Non-unity/Atypical product versions was significant only 
for the refrigerator product F (1,121 = 28.41, p < .0001). These results indicate 
that product appearance, and particularly unity, does influence subjects' 
attitudes toward products even when written attribute information (i. e., 
technical information) is available concerning the products. 

The means for the quality ratings are presented in Table V-3 and the 
ANOVA for the effect of unity on subjects' perceptions of quahty is presented 
in Table V-4. Although the pattern exhibited by the means is consistent with 
the prediction that the unity aspect of product appearance influences perceived 
quahty, the effect of unity was not significant across products F (2,984 = .22, 
p > .25), nor was the contrast between the mean for Unity/Atypical products 



113 







TABLE V - 3 
QUALITY 






Product 


Unity/ 
typical 


Non-Unity/ 
Atypical 


Unity/ 
Atypical 


Utm' 


1. Bathroom scale 


5.24 


5.58 


6.68 


til 

1.10 


2. T. V. Remote 


6.44 


6.00 


6.21 


0.21 


3. Flashlight 


5.30 


5.46 


5.98 


0.52 


4. Lamp 


6.91 


5.19 


5.83*^ 


0.64 


5. Refrigerator 


5.83 


5.70**=*=^ 


5.97 


27**b 


6. Telephone 


6.05 


5.44* 


5.65*** 


0.21 


7. Hair dryer 


6.11 


6.77* 


5.44** 


-1.33 


8. Dresser 


6.29 


5.67 


6.09 


0.42 


9. Clock 


5.49 


6.37 


6.00 


-0.37 


Total 


5.96 


5.79 


5.98 


0.19 



^ Indicates significance fi-om Prototypical product. 

Indicates significance of the differences between Unity/Atypical 

and Non-unity/Atypical conditions. 
*** Indicates differences significant at p < .001. 
** Indicates differences significant at p < .01. 
* Indicates differences significant at p < .05. 

+ Indicates differences significant at p < .10. 



114 



TABLE V - 4 





ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE - QUATJTY 


Source 


DF 


Type III SS 


F-Value 


P>F 


Between Subjects Effects 






Intercept 
Covariate 
Version 

Order and Position 
Version * Order 
Error 


1 
1 
2 
1 
2 
123 


2.5064 

474.7499 

21.0677 

4.7474 

1.1033 

451.1998 


0.68 
129.42 
2.87 
1.29 
0.15 


0.4101 
0.0001 
0.0604 
0.2575 
0.8605 


Cell 

Prod * Version 
Error (Product) 


2 

14 
984 


0.6545 

200.7009 

1431.8646 


0.22 
9.85 


0.2500 
0.0010 


Cell * Order 
Prod * Version * Order 
Error (Product) 


2 

14 
984 


0.3782 

47.7123 

1431.8646 


0.13 
2.34 


0.2500 
0.1000 



(M = 5.98) and the mean for Non-unity/Atypical products (M = 5.79) significant 
F (1,123) = .24, p > .25). Seven of the nine nonhnear unity scores were in the 
expected direction. Follow-up tests on the individual products indicated that 
the contrast between the Unity/Atypical and Non-unity/Atypical product 
versions was only significant for the refiigerator product F (1,123 = 6.84, p < 
.01). 



Summarv 
It was predicted that the unity aspect of product appearance would 
influence subjects' attitudes towards products and their perceptions of product 
quahty despite the availability of written attribute information. The results 



115 

presented here indicate that while this certainly does seem to be the case for 

attitudes toward products, the additional information seems to moderate the 
influence of product aesthetics (i. e., unity) on perceptions of product quahty. 
As was pointed out in Chapter III, attitudes seem to be more closely hnked (or 
more susceptible) to aesthetic responses than other derived responses such as 
quahty. It may be that the more general nature of attitudes results in their 
being more inclusive and thus allows (consciously or unconsciously) aesthetic 
information to be weighted more heavily than it is in the case of derived 
responses that are more focused on specific product attributes. 



CHAPTER VI 
GENERAL DISCUSSION 



The results of these three studies provide strong evidence of the 
influence of unity on aesthetic responses. Unity was also shown to 
significantly influence attitudes toward products, perceived familiarity, and in 
some situations perceptions of product quality. The context of the evaluation 
situation (i. e., whether or not other product variations or written product 
descriptions were presented for comparison along with the product being 
evaluated) was shown to moderate the influence of unity (i. e., aesthetic 
response) on perceived quality. In addition to these insights concerning the 
influence of unity on aesthetic and derived responses, these studies help to 
clarify the role of prototypicality in influencing aesthetic and derived 
responses. Although prototypicality did seem to have a positive effect on 
aesthetic responses and attitudes toward products, it did not seem to have a 
positive effect on perceived quality or price expectations. In fact, 
prototypicality seemed to have a negative effect on price expectations. 

In Experiment 1 a product's consistency with the unity visual 
organization principle was shown to significantly influence subjects' aesthetic 
responses toward products. The favorable aesthetic response generated by a 



116 



117 
product's consistency with the unity visual organization principle carried over 

into subjects' attitudes toward products, perceptions of product quality, and 
product price expectations. In addition, unity was shown to influence subjects' 
perceptions of product famiHarity. The effect of unity was quite robust as 
these results were rephcated across nine product categories using three 
different types of product transformation. The results of Experiment 1 provide 
a clear indication that the unity visual organization principle is an important 
design factor that can significantly influence aesthetic responses and non- 
aesthetic product evaluations. 

Experiment 2 found that unity significantly influenced aesthetic 
responses even when products were evaluated without the context of other 
product versions from the same product category. The favorable aesthetic 
response generated by consistency with the unity visual organization principle 
was also shown to carry over to attitudes toward products and perceived 
famiharity. Although the overall pattern of the means for the quality ratings 
of the products was positive for the majority of the stimulus sets tested, it was 
not significant. This experiment, which provided a between-subjects test of the 
influence of the unity and prototypicahty factors, indicates that just as in 
Experiment 1 unity provides a better explanation of aesthetic response than 
does prototypicality. This between-subjects replication further demonstrates 
that the effects of unity are quite robust. 



118 
The "comparative context" (i. e., different product versions rated 
together) of Experiment 1 was similar to shopping situations where competitive 
product offerings in the same category are displayed together (e. g., electronics 
stores). This is also the case for products displayed in catalogs that feature 
goods made by more than one manufacturer. The majority of products seem 
to be displayed along with competitive product offerings and therefore are 
evaluated in comparative contexts. In this sense Experiment 1 would seem to 
be ecologically vahd. However, most advertising and some products are 
evaluated under conditions similar to the "non-comparative" context employed 
in Experiment 2. The evaluative context in Experiment 2 was "non- 
comparative" in that product versions were evaluated singularly, without the 
benefit of other similar product versions as reference points. This is the case 
for most advertising. It is also the case for products such as automobiles, 
boats, furniture, etc. that often involve exclusive distribution networks. The 
evaluation contexts for these products is usually one where the consumer is not 
able to directly (i. e., side by side) compare competitive product offerings. With 
respect to these purchase situations Experiment 2 would seem to be 
ecologically valid. 

The third experiment, which focused on derived responses, found that 
the unity aspect of product appearance influenced subjects' attitudes toward 
products despite the availability of information contained in product 
descriptions. This study involved a context that was similar to many eveiyday 



119 
shopping situations in that the products being evaluated were presented along 

with descriptive information. Even though subjects were allowed to evaluate 

the products in whatever manner that they wished, the aesthetic information 

(i. e., product appearance) clearly played a role in influencing their attitudes 

toward the products. The descriptive information did, however, seem to 

supersede aesthetic information with respect to perceived quality. 

Across the three experiments the effects of unity were quite robust 

although they were more pronounced in the experiment that was conducted 

within-subjects than they were in the between-subjects experiments. This is 

not surprising since within-subjects designs afford more statistical power than 

do between-subjects designs. The fact that these effects were indicated despite 

the use of rather primitive line drawings suggests that the effects may be 

stronger in the real-world since a "greater range of perceptual saHence can be 

achieved" through the use of color, materials, and three dimensions 

(Hutchinson and Alba 1991, p. 342). It is important to note that the effects of 

unity on derived responses that were observed in Experiments 1 and 2 could 

have been influenced by the procedure that was employed (i.e., having subjects 

rate the products on all five of the dependent measures). ^^ The fact that 

the patterns exhibited by each of the dependent variables were not the same 

(e. g., price) coupled with the fact that the effect of unity was observed in the 



1 (-5 

The direction of two of the rating scales was reversed in order to 
reduce response bias on the part of subjects. 



120 
third experiment in which subjects rated products on only one of the dependent 

measures would seem to suggest that the results are not merely an artifact of 
the procedure employed. 

The findings concerning the effect of evaluation context on the influence 
of product aesthetics has some interesting managerial imphcations which are 
especially relevant to the design and marketing of new products. Experiment 
3 seems to indicate that the context in which product evaluations occur (e. g., 
presence of competitive products, descriptive product information) can 
influence how heavily consumers weight aesthetic information (i. e., product 
appearance) in their product evaluations. This suggests that there may be a 
trade-off between the influence of descriptive information and product 
appearance in the promotion or merchandising of a product. If, for example, 
the addition of certain descriptive product information causes consumers to 
focus less on a very well designed product's appearance, then the net effect of 
adding the information may be a reduction in the total "impact" of the 
promotional effort. Depending on the goals (i. e., desired impact; e. g., 
increased sales, awareness, quality perceptions, etc.) of the promotion this 
could seriously affect the results of the campaign. 

Experiments 1 and 2 suggest that context (i. e., the opportunity to 
compare a product version with other products in the same product category 
during the evaluation phase of the buying process) plays a role in mediating 
the influence of the aesthetic aspects of products. This suggests that managers 



121 
should pay particular attention to product design for products that will be 
evaluated in close proximity (either physically or in photographs) to 
competitors' products since the influence of aesthetic response is Hkely to play 
a role in affecting key product perceptions (e. g, beauty, quahty). This could 
also be true for instances where consumers collect product brochures in order 
to "directly" compare products (e.g., automobile brochures). The findings of 
these studies also seem to suggest that in cases where a product is known to 
have a poor appearance an effort should be made to display it apart from other 
products that have more appealing designs. Such action would reduce the 
salience of the aesthetic aspects of the product. ■'■'^ 

One interesting finding that would seem to have implications for the 
designing of new products concerns the relationship between novelty and price. 
The novel (i. e., atypical) products in Experiments 1 and 2 were associated 
with higher prices regardless of the level of unity that they exhibited. The 
association of higher priced products with the prototypicality of a product's 
appearance and the association of quality with the unity aspect of a product's 
design would seem to suggest that product appearance (i. e., design) can be 
used to position a product with respect to (seemingly) "non-aesthetic" 
dimensions (i. e., price, quahty). The impHcation is that design could be used 



17 



This course of action is offered with great reservation. The best 
long-term course of action would be to redesign the product. 
However, in cases where a basically sound product has failed to 
achieve commercial success due to an initially poor design such a 
course of action may be warranted. 



122 
by a company to create an entire "line" of products that target different 

consumer segments at different price points, levels of quality, etc., while 
utihzing the same internal components. While this would be an extreme use 
(i. e., exploitation) of product design, the more Hkely and desirable use is to 
employ design to better communicate the nature (i. e., positioning and proper 
use) of a product to consumers. 

An important issue to be investigated further is the relationship between 
unity and prototypicahty. The findings of Experiments 1 and 2 indicated that 
consistency with the unity visual organization principle is positively related to 
perceived familiarity. One possible explanation for this is that there may be 
a natural tendency in people toward organization principles such as unity and 
symmetry. Whether the tendency of the viewer to look for organization and 
prefer it to chaos is innate or learned is still the subject of debate. The debate 
between biological and cultural determinism in aesthetics is but a small part 
of a larger ongoing debate on the relative roles of "nature" and "nurture" in 
human behavior. In all likelihood, the tendency to perceive visual elements in 
certain ways or as integrated wholes involves both biological and cultural 
influences. The natural tendency toward organization with respect to 
principles such as unity and symmetry may stem (at least in part) from our 
earliest encounters with ourselves and our environments (Johnson 1987). Our 
bodies (i. e., forms) and those of the animals and plants that we encounter 
exhibit the "regularities" that we have come to know as unity, symmetry, 



123 
balance, proportion, etc. Experience with these regularities would most 

certainly influence subsequent perception and over time become internalized. 

In this way people may develop a level of famiharity with and preference for 

certain relations (i. e, regularities; e. g., unity, symmetry). Goldstone, Medin, 

and Gentner (1991) have investigated how relational similarities (i. e., 

descriptions of connections between two or more objects or attributes; e. g., 

same color) affect similarity judgments. Their work shows that relations and 

attributes are psychologically distinct and that relations can significantly affect 

similarity judgments. Thus, relations (i. e., visual organization principles) 

which are learned (consciously or nonconsciously) would seem to have the 

potential to influence judgments of a product's prototypicahty. 

There is also a need for further investigation into the systematic nature 

of aesthetic response. This work as well as others (e. g., Veryzer 1993) 

indicates that the systematic nature of aesthetic response in the visual domain 

stems from the perceptual tendency toward organization. This tendency has 

been studied by the Gestalt psychologists and aestheticians and is the basis for 

general rules of perception such as the Gestalt laws (e. g., proximity, 

similarity) and design principles (e. g., unity, contrast, proportion). While the 

source of the visual organization principles (i. e., design principles, Gestalt 

laws) that operate to organize perception is still open to debate, there is 

evidence that the perception principles are present very early in life and that 

preferences related to these principles develop over time and may be modified 



124 
or influenced by cultural forces (Bornstein, Ferdinandsen, and Gross 1981; 

Segall 1976). Although the acquired principles are undoubtably modified from 

time to time, aesthetic response preference patterns are fairly stable within 

individuals over time (Huber and Holbrook 1981). Similarities and differences 

observed between individuals may be due to similarities or differences in the 

physical, socio-economic, or cultural environment in which people live. 

Although on the surface it would seem that aesthetic response operates 

on a conscious level involving rational evaluation, it has been suggested that 

the intervening cognitive response system may operate below the threshold of 

consciousness at a subconscious or pre-conscious level (Holbrook and 

Hirschman 1982). Aesthetic response seems to operate on at least two levels - 

conscious awareness and nonconscious awareness (Holbrook and Hirschman 

1982). The conscious level involves attending to the object and registering 

feeHngs or appreciation of the object. This level is the conscious registering of 

the unconscious input and is therefore primarily a function of the nonconscious 

awareness level (Zajonc 1980). The nonconscious level of awareness involves 

perceiving the object and determining its consistency with rxiles (e. g., design 

principles) which have been acquired. Regardless of whether these rules are 

innate or learned nonconsciously, they often seem to be appHed without 

conscious awareness. Thus, while differences in the appearance of products 

may be readily perceived (i. e., conscious awareness), the underlying process 



125 
by which the differences are transformed into an aesthetic response often 
seems to occur nonconsciously. 

The relationship between design principles and aesthetic response seems 
to develop, at least in part, through learning. While this learning process may 
be a formal one as in the case of educational programs for art and architecture, 
it often seems to be the result of an informal and nonconscious process. Thus, 
the phenomenon of aesthetic response may involve the nonconscious 
development of design principle internal processing algorithms (design 
principle IPAs) as well as the nonconscious application of these design 
principle algorithms. Objects (products) that are consistent with a person's 
design principle IPAs would be expected to produce more positive affect than 
objects that violate a person's relevant design principle IPAs (Veryzer 1993). 
Another area that merits further investigation is the tendency of people 
to underweight the influence of product aesthetics on their evaluations of 
products. Berkowitz (1987) found evidence of the misattribution of product 
preferences by the perceivers of products. In a study that examined people's 
preferences for two food products, ratings on product attributes revealed that 
subjects did not attribute the reasons for their choices to visual appeal or more 
pleasing shape even though shape was the only actual difference between the 
two types of products. The fact that consumers attributed their preferences to 
other aspects such as "freshness" and "taste" even though shape was the only 



126 
difference between the two products raises questions about consumers' level of 

awareness concerning the influence of aesthetics on their product evaluations. 
It is hoped that in addition to improving our understanding of the 
influence of aesthetics on consumer behavior the research that has been 
presented here will serve as a foundation for a theory of consumer aesthetics. 
This work takes an important step toward increasing our knowledge of the 
relationship between product aesthetics and consumer behavior. The goal of 
this research has been to investigate product aesthetics in a manner that 
yields the concrete principles governing people's responses to product designs. 
The theory and propositions concerning unity, prototypicahty, and aesthetic 
response that were presented here lay a foundation for theorizing about the 
aesthetic aspects of product design. The results from the three studies indicate 
that there are, indeed, factors that systematically and significantly influence 
consumers' aesthetic responses and product perceptions. These findings 
provide empirical evidence that design is not simply a superficial, frivolous 
concern, but rather that it is an important variable that can have a significant 
impact on consumers' responses to products. This should encourage 
researchers and managers ahke to pay more attention to design issues. It 
should also help to more firmly estabhsh product design as a legitimate 
marketing interest. 



APPENDIX A 
PRODUCTS EXPLORED FOR USE AS STIMULI 



APPENDIX A 
PRODUCTS EXPLORED FOR USE AS STIMULI 

The products employed in the experiment were drawn from a larger set 
of stimuh that had been explored with respect to the proposed manipulations. 
Suitable stimuh can be created for virtually any product by manipulating two 
features of the product (e. g., shapes: circle/square; texture: smooth/rough; 
trim: present/absent; angle: 90-degree/60-degree). A partial hst of products 
that have been explored with respect to the proposed manipulations includes 
the following: 



Alarm clocks 
Calculators 
Cameras 
Clock radios 
Coffee pots 
Cologne bottles 
Cordless phones 
Cups 
Dressers 
Electric fans 
Flashlights 
Glue guns 



Ice chests 

Irons 

Kitchen timers 

Lamps 

Make-up compacts 

Mirrors 

Pencil sharpener 

Pots/pans 

Refrigerator 

Scissors 

Sewing machines 

Shirts 



Silverware 

Staplers 

Stereos 

Sunglasses 

Telephones 

Thermoses 

Toasters 

Toothbrushes 

Television remote controls 

Televisions 

Vacuum cleaners 

Watches 



128 



APPENDIX B 

STIMULUS SETS 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling) the scales below each. 

Bathroom scales 




Diilike 1 

Uglv 1 

Familial 1 

HighQualiry 1 

Low Price 1 



Dislike 1 

Ugly 1 

ramihar i 

HighQualit>' 1 

j^w Pnce 1 



r t? ~ 


t. 


" 


Like 


f r- " 


S 


y 


Beautifui 


.^ 6 - 


8 


9 


Unfamiliar 


5 ^ "J 


8 


9 


Low Ouaiitv' 


5 t^ - 


S 


9 


High Pnce 




9 Like 


Dislike 


') Beauiifxil 


Uci\ 


4 Unfamiliar 


Familiar 


<^ Low Oualiu- 


High Oualjr. 


» Hich Pnce 


i-ow Pnce 




Dislike 1 : 3 4 5 6 7 N II Like 

'-'£'>■ i ; 3 4 5 6 7 8 ij Beauiifui 

Familial 1:34567^0 Unfamiliar 

High Quality 1 2 3 4 J 6 7 i< 9 Low Qualiiy 

Low Pnce i : 3 4 5 e- 7 x « High Pnce 




6 7 


^ 


Q 


Lii;e 


6 - 


\ 


^ 


BeauLiTui 


6 " 


,s 





Unfainiiia: 





■> 


C) 


Low Ouaiu^ 


6 " 


> 


^> 


Hii:h Pnce 



130 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling) the scales below each. 

Bathroom scales 




Disiix.' 

Lg:;. 

FajTliha.' 

H:gh Quaiir^ 

Low Pnce 



Fami;;-: 
Low h"::: 



t; " Beautiful 

i^ '^ Lmamihai 

S ^ Lc^w QualiD.' 

.'i ^ Hieh Pnce 





Dislike 

Familiar 
i^ich Quailt^■ 
Low Pncc 



Lnzc 


Disiiict; 


BeauLuu; 


IJE'iv 


Lniamiiir- 


Famihar 


LOW OuaJu^ 


H]^h Quail lA 


Hizh PncL- 


LX^W iTiCi- 



" Bcautuu! 

^' UnlamiJiar 

^ Low QuaiuN 

'' High Pncc 




Ll>,L 

BeauLiil". 
"-' LinJanu::-- 

- Lov-^uaiir 

- Hich Pn-. 



131 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling) the scales below each. 

Bathroom ii^ ^ii^c 




Dislike 

Famiijar 

High Quaiir>' 

Low Pnce 



s 


■^ 


Like 


Dislike 


■^ 


-J 


Beautiful 


L'gi}' 


b 


" 


Unlamiiiar 


FamiliaT 


!■, 


g 


Low Quajity 


High OuaJip,- 


^ 


9 


High Pnce 


i^^w FVice 





■ ■' Like 

"> Bcauuiul 

'■ '-' Unj'amiJiar 

^ Low Qualiry 

• ^ HifihPnce 





Disiii:e 

rammar 

Hisih OuaiitA 

Low Pncs 



Like 


Dislike 


Beautifi;] 


Le!y 


Umamiiiar 


Farmiiar 


Low Quaiin.' 


HighOuaiiD. 


High Pnce 


Low Pnce 



- Like 
Beautiful 
Unfamiiiar 

"• Low Quaiir. 
^ High Pnce 



132 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling) the scales below each. 

TV Remntp. rnntrnK 



3S^ 

C3C3C3 

dates 




Dislike 


- 


■ - 


5 


6 


- 


s 





Like 


Ugiy 


- 


' - 


? 


6 


- 


8 


Q 


Beaulihil 


Famiiiar 1 


- 


- 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


Unfamiliar 


High Quail p.- 


- 


^ 4 


5 


6 


- 


S 


9 


Low Oualiry 


Low Pnce 


- 


a 


5 


6 


7 


g 


9 


High Price 



DlsilKC 

Uciy 

Fanuiiar 

High Quail r\' 1 

Low Pnce 1 






8 Like 

8 9 Beauuftil 

8 9 Unfamiliar 

y 9 Low Qualir. 

^ •i High Pnce 






Dislike 

Ugly 

Familiar 

High Quahcy 

Low Pnce 



DisUke 

Ugly 

Familiar 

High Oualiry 

Low Price 



6 " 8 V Like 

■ 8 ^ Bcauuful 

f> ' 8 ^ Unfamiliar 

^ ■' 8 ^ Low Qualuv 

6 7 8 - High Pnce 



C3aC3 



Lixe 
BeauLifiii 

L'nfamiiiar 
Low QuaJiPs- 
High Pnce 



133 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling.) the scales below each. 

TV Remotp rr>r^,Tr.]o, 



C3C3CJ 



C3L3C3 

aC3C3 




Dislike 

Ugiy 

Familiar 

High Quality 

Low Pnce 



8 Lixe 

« ? Beautiful 

8 '^ Unfamiliar 

S y Lx)w OuaiiD.' 

S 9 Hi2h Pnce 



'SS3 



Dislike ". 2 3 

Ugiy 1 ; ; 

Fajniiiar 1 2 j 

High Quality \ 2 ,■ 

Low Pnce 1 2 3 



S y Luce 

S y Beauuni! 

^^ ° Uniamiliar 

.S 9 I^w QuaiiP.' 

!< 9 HiEh Pnce 



Dislike 

Ugly 

Familiar 

High Quail tv 

Low Pnce 



Dislike 

Ugly 

Familiar 

High Quahiy 

Low Pnce 



fC3C3C=l 



- 3 4 3 6 7 8 'I Lixe 
---SibTSQ Bcauuiui 
--■^^ti7ijQ Uruamiliar 

- ■■ -^ 5 6 " 8 9 Low Quality 
-'-5678') HichPncc 




■ - 




- 


r 


~ 


' 


s 


Lix= 


■ = 


3 


- 


5 


^ 


- 


^< 


y Beautilui 


; 2 


-' 


i 


5 


r. 


7 


8 


y Unianuiiar 


^ 


-' 


4 


^ 


■^ 


- 


S 


9 Low Quabi\ 


■> 


J 


4 


5 


ri 


7 


S 


9 Hich Pnce 



134 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling) the scales below each. 

TV Remote Controls 




Dislike 1 ; ? J 5 6 

Ugly 1 2 5 4 5 6 

Familiar 12 3 4 5 6 

High Quality 12 3 4 3 6 

Low Price 12 3 4 5 6 



8 Like 

8 9 Beautiful 

S 9 Unfamiliar 

8 9 Low Quality 

8 9 High Pnce 





Dislike 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 1) Like 

■j'g'y I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Boauiiful 

Familiar 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Umamil.ar 

High Quality 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Low Quality 

Ujw Pnce 1 ; 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 HichPnce 



Dislike 


2 


? - 


-' 


6 


" 


S 


u 


Like 


Dislike 


Ugly 


- 


^ - 


5 


6 


7 


8 


g 


Beautiful 


Ugly 


ramiiiar 1 


- - 


- 


5 


6 


- 


J 


u 


Liniamiliar 


Famiiiar 


iigh Quality " 


- 


- ' 


5 


6 


- 


h 


9 


Low QualiD.' 


High Quaiir. 


l^w Price 1 


- 


- 


5 


6 


T 


0. 


4 


High Price 


Low Price 




3^5 



7 'i 



Like 



aeautirui 

-345o7SO Unfamiiiai 
-3-i567SQ LowQuaiiP.' 
- -^ -i 5 6 7 8 9 HichPnce 



135 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling) the scales below each. 

Flashlights 




Dislike 1 : 

Ugly 1 2 

Familiar 1 2 

High Qualiiy 1 : 

Low Price 1 2 



Dislike 1 

Ugly 1 

Faimhar i 

High Quaiiry 1 

Low Price 1 



7 8 9 Like 

5 7 8 9 Beautiful 

7 8 9 Unfamiliar 

b 7 8 9 Low Quaiiry 

6 7 8 9 HighPnce 




6 7 8 9 Like 

fi 7 S 9 Beautiful 

6 7 S 9 Unfamiliar ' 

7 8 9 Low Quality 

6 7 8 9 HighPnce 




Dislike 12 3 4 5 6 

Ugly 12 3 4 5 6 

Familiar 12 3 4 5 6 

High Quality 12 3 4 5 6 

Low Price 12 3 4 5 6 



S 9 LJce 

S 9 Beautiful 

8 9 Unfamiliar 

8 9 Low Quality 

8 9 Hich Pnce 




DisUke 12 3 4 5 6 

Ugly 12 3 4 5 6 

Familiar 12 3 4 5 6 

High Quality 12 3 4 5 6 

Low Price 12 3 4 5 6 



S 3 Like 

8 9 Beautiful 

S " Unfamiliar 

8 9 Low Quaiitv 

8 9 High Pnce 



136 



Please indicate your reaction to tiie appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling) the scales below each. 

Flashlight'; 



Dislike 

Ucly 

Famiiiar 

HighQuaJir\' 

Low Pnce 



DisUke 

Ugly 
Famiiiaj 
High Quail n-' 
Low Pnce 





fc 7 S 9 Like 

6 7 8 9 Beauuful 

■"^ " i^ "^ Umamiiiar 

s " S 9 LowQuaiiiy 

6 7 8 9 High Pnce 







S 


9 


Like 


Diilike 


6 " 


S 


9 


Beauuful 


Ugly 1 


6 7 


8 


9 


Unfamiliar 


Familiar 1 


6 7 


S 


9 


1-ow Quality 


High Quality 1 


6 7 


S 


9 


High Pnce 


Low Pnce 1 



Dislike 

Ugly 

Familiar 

High Quality 

Low Pnce 



4 5- 6 7 5 11 Like 

4^6780 Beauuful 

4 5 6 7 8'^ Unfamiliar 

J ? 6 7 8 = LowQualily 

J 5 6 7 8 ^ HichPncc 




- -" f' ' ^ - Like 

-'5678-' Beauufiil 

- 5 6 7 S - UiUamiiiT 

- ? S " S -^ LowQuaim 

- -" 6 7 8 a High Pnce 



137 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling) the scales below each. 

Flashlights 




Dislike 

Ugly 

Familial 

High Quail ry 

Low Pnce 



^ " 


S 





Like 


6 7 


s 





Beauunil 


6 7 


8 


9 


Unfamjiiar 


6 7 


S 


9 


Low Quality 


6 7 


s 


9 


High Pnce 




Dislike 
Ugly • 
Faimiia: 
High Quality ; 
Low Pnce '. 



S " Luce 

8 9 Beauurui 

^ 9 Lmarruiiar 

tf 9 Low Ouaiir.' 

^ 9 HidiPnce 




Dislike 1 

Ugly ! 

Faimljar ] 

High Quality 1 

i-ow Pnce 1 



-' J 5 b " ^ '1 Like 

3 4 5 6 " S 9 Boautuui 

3 - 5 6 7 s " L'mamiliar 

-' - ? 6 " S< « LowQuaiily 

-' - ? 6 " S 9 HichPnce 




Dislike : 

Ugly 1 

Familiar 

High Quality ; 

Low Price 1 



■^ ^ Like 

^ ^ Beau til ul 

S '"^ Unfamiimr 

^ -^ Low Quaiir. 

^ " High Pr.c; 



138 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling) the scales below each. 

Lamps 




DisUkc 1 

Ugly 1 

Familiar 1 

High Quality 1 

Low Pnce 1 



3 -1 J 6 " 8 9 Lik= 

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Beautiful 

3 J 5 6 " 8 9 Unfamiiiai 

3 -i ^ 6 7 8 9 Low Quaiitv 

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 High Pnce 




Dislike 1 

Ugly 1 

Familiar 1 

High Quahrv' 1 

Low Puce 1 



5 6 ^ S 9 Like 

5 6 ' 8 9 Beautiful 

- i^ 7 3 9 Unfamiliar 

5 6 " S 9 Low Quality 

5 6 7 8 9 HiehPnce 



Dislike I 

Ugly : 

Familiar 1 

High Quality 1 

Low Price 1 



Dislike 

Ugly 

Familiar 

HighQuaiii>' 

Low Price 




4 ? 6 7 S 9 Like 

4 5 6 7 8 9 Boauuful 

4 5 6 7 8 9 Unfamiliar 

4 5 6 7 8 9 Low Quaht>' 

4 5 6 7 8 9 High Price 




5 = 789 Liiie 

5 6^89 Beautiful 

5 6 7 8 9 Unfamiliar 

5 6^89 LowQuaiii\' 

5 6 7 8 9 High Pnce 



139 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling) tiie scales below each. 

Lamps 



Dislilce 1 

L'giy 1 

Familiar 1 

HighQuaiiry 1 

Low Pnce 1 




^ 7 


S 


9 


Liice 


fi 7 


s 


9 


Beautiful 


6 7 


8 


9 


Unfamiliar 


t^ 


S 


9 


Low Qualitv' 


6 7 


8 


9 


High Price 




Dislike 1 

Ugly 1 

FaiTuliar 1 

High Quality 1 

Low Pncc 1 



? 4 5 6 7 S 9 Like 

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Bcauuful 

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unfamiliar 

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Low Quality 

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 High Pnce 




Dblike 

Ugly 

Famihaj 

High Quality 

i-ow Pncc 




8 


9 


Like 


Dislike 


2 


1 


4 


3 


6 


~ 


8 


9 


Like 


8 


9 


Beautiful 


Ugly 


- 


-^ 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


Beautiful 


S 


9 


Unfamiliar 


Familiar 


- 


3 


4 


5 


6 


- 


8 


u 


Unfamiliar 


8 


9 


Low Quality 


HighQuaiiry 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


s 


9 


LowQuabtv 


8 


9 


High Price 


Low Price 


: 


3 


1 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


Hich Pnce 



140 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling) the scales below each. 

Lamp<; 




Dislike 1 

Ugiy 1 

Familiar 1 

HighQuabcy 1 

Low Price 1 



3 J 5 ci 7 

3 4 5 6 7 

3 4 5 6 7 

3 4 5 c' 7 

3 4 5^7 



8 9 Like 

8 9 Beautiful 

8 9 Unfamiliar 

8 9 Low Quality 

8 9 High Price 




Diskke 


;;; 


3 4 


5 


L'giy 


: 


3 4 


^ 


Familiar 


3 


3 4 


5 


High Quality 


3 


3 j; 


5 


Low Pnce 




3 4 


^ 



8 9 Like 

S 9 Beautiful 

S 9 Unfamiliar 

8 9 L^w Quality 

8 9 HiEh Pnce 




Dislike 1 3 3 4 5 6 

IJgly 12 3 4 5 6 

Familiar 1 3 3 4 5 6 

HighQuaiicy 13 3 4 5 6 

Low Price 1 2 3 4 5 6 



Dislike 1 

Ugiy i 

Familiar 1 

High Quality 1 

Low Price 1 



2 3 4 



8 9 Like 

» 9 Beautiful 

8 9 Unfajniliar 

!^ 9 Low Quality 

S 9 High Price 




K 


■ * 9 


Like 


6 ' 


- 9 


Beaudful 


6 


!■ 9 


Unfamiliar 


6 


^ 9 


Low Quail r. 


6 ■ 


:r 9 


High Price 



141 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marlcing (circling) the scales below each. 

Refrigeratnr<; 



Dislike 1 

Ugly 1 

Familiar 

High Quality i 

Low Pnce 1 





s 


'^ Like 


DlsUke 1 


8 


9 Beautiful 


Ugly 1 


y 


9 Uniaimlia!- 


Familiar 1 


3 


9 Low Quality 


High Quality 1 


8 


9 High Pnce 


Low Plica 1 




Dislike 


: 


3 


4 


; 


6 


" 


s 


9 


Like 


Dislike 


2 


3 


4 


5 


ci 


- 


8 


-> Like 


Ugly 


-1 


3 


4 


^ 


6 


7 


s 


q 


Beautiful 


Ugly 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


- 


8 


9 Boautifiil 


Familiar 1 


- 


3 


4 


5 


6 


" 


8 





Unfamiliar 


Familiar 1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 Unfamiliar 


High Quail ry 


- 


7 


- 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


Low Quality 


High Quality 1 


2 


3 


4 


s 


t 


- 


8 


9 Low Quahly 


Low Price 


- 




4 


„ 





7 


8 


9 


High Pnce 


L-ow Pnce 1 


2 


3 


J 


5 





7 


8 


« High Pnce 




8 ^ LlKi 

i " Beautiful 

8 ^ Unfamiliar 

8 9 Low Quality 

8 High Price 



142 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling) the scales below each. 

. Refrigerators 




DisUkc 

Ugly 

Familiar 

High Quality 

Low Price 



n ~ 8 o Like 

6 7 8 9 Beauoful 

6 7 s 9 Um'anuliar 

6 7 8 9 Low Quality 

6 7 8 9 HighPnce 



Dislike I 

Ugly 1 

Familiar 1 

High Quality 1 

Low Price i 



6 7 S 9 Lie 

6 7 S 9 Beautiful 

6 7 S 9 Unfamiliar 

6 7 8 9 Low Quality 

6 7 S 9 HiehPnce 



Dislike 1 

Ugly 1 

Familiar 1 

High Quality 1 

Low Price 1 




-' J 5 6 7 8 9 Like 

3 J 5 6 7 8 9 Beautiful 

3 -1 5 6 7 8 Q Unfamiliar 

3 -4 ; 6 7 8 9 Low Quality 

3 •* 5 6 7 8 9 HighPnce 



- 



Dislike 1 ; 3 

Ugly 1 ; :, 

Familiar 1 2 3 

High Quality 1 2 3 

Low Pnce 1 2 3 



6 " S 3 Like 

6 7 s 9 Beautiful 

6 7 8 9 Unfamiliar 

6 7 8 9 Low Quality 

6 7 3 9 HighPnce 



143 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling) the scales below each. 

— Refrigerator; 




Dislike 1 2 3 4 ; 

Ugiy 12 3 4 5 6 

Familiar 1 2 3 4 5 6 

High Quality 12 3 4 5 6 

Low Pnce 12 3 4 5 6 



8 9 Like 

8 9 Beauiiful 

8 9 Unfamiliar 

8 9 Low Quality 

8 9 High Pnce 




Dislike 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 < 9 Like 

Ugly 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 S 9 Beauuful 

Familiar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 Unfamiliar 

High Quality 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Low Quality 

U,w Pnce 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 High Pnce 




Dislike 




^ 


-1 


V 


6 


7 


S 


9 


Like 


Dislike 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


- 


X 


Like 


Ugly 


- 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


Beautiful 


Ugly 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


^ 


9 Beautiful 


Famihar 


- 


3 


^ 


f 


6 


7 


8 


9 


Unfamiliar 


Familiar 1 


-1 


3 


4 


5 


6 


- 


S 


^ Unfamiliar 


High Quahty 1 


' 


3 


- 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


Low Quaiiry 


High Quality 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


S 


'^ Low Quality 


Low Price 


2 


" 


- 


s 


6 


7 


8 


9 


High Price 


Low Price 


^ 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 High Pnce 



144 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling) the scales below each. 

Telephones 



Dislike i 

Ugly I 

Famibar 1 

High Qualip.' 1 

Low Pnce 1 



Disiixe 

L'gly 

Famiiiaj 

Hich Quaiip.' 

Low Pnce 




? 4 5 b 7 X Q L^j;e 

3-156739 Beautiful 

3 4 5 5 7 3 9 Unfamil. 

3 4 5 6 7 S 9 LowQuaL 

3 4 5 6 7 3 9 Hich Pnce 



lar 





Dislike 


; 




4 


5 


6 


- 


3 


9 Lie 


Ugly 


1 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


3 


9 Beauui'^. 


Fainjiiar 


- 


3 


4 


5 


5 


7 


8 


9 Unj'amiiiai 


High Quality 


- 


3 


4 


^ 


6 


7 


3 


4 Low Ouaiily 


Low Pnce 


- 


3 


4 


^ 


6 


7 


8 


9 High Pnce 




''' 


9 


Like 


Dislike 


- 3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


3 


•i 


Llk; 


3 


6 


Beautiful 


U.iv 


: 3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


5 


9 


BeauLilL. 


= 


Q 


Unfamiliar 


Famiiiai 


3 3 


4 


C 


6 


- 


^' 





Lrjurc:;:!- 


< 


9 


Low Quality 


High Quabtv 


: 3 


4 


s 


6 


7 


.y 


y 


Low Quair 


i 


9 


High Price 


Low Pnce 


: 3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


High Pnce 



145 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling) the scales below each. 

Tel-ephones 




Dislike 


; 


-^ 


J 


5 


6 


7 


8 


Q 


Like 


Dislike 


Lgiy 


~) 


3 


4 


5 


5 


7 


S 


Q 


Beauuful 


Ugly 


Famihar 


1 


3 


4 


« 


6 


-I 


8 


q 


Unfamiliar 


Familiar 


High Qualiiy 


1 


'i, 


4 


5 


6 


1 


8 


9 


Low Quality 


High Quality 


Low Pncc 


-1 


3 


4 


3 


6 


' 


8 


Q 


High Price 


Low Pnce 




Dislike 

L'giy 

Famiiiar 

High Quaiiry 

Low Pnce 



4 f 


t 


'' 


8 


9 


Like 


Dislike 


4 5 


6 


7 


S 


9 


Beautiful 


Ugiy 


■* 5 


6 


-1 


S 


Q 


Umamiliar 


Familiar 


4 5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


Low Quality 


High Quality 


4 5 


b 


7 


S 


9 


High Price 


Low Pnce 




-^ J -' 6 7 S 9 Like 

3 -I 5 6 7 8 9 Boauuful 

3-1:6789 Unfamiliar 

3 -1 ; 6 7 8 9 Low Quality' 

■• J ? 6 7 8 9 High Pnce 




s " 8 Q Luce 

6 7 8 9 Beautiful 

6 7 8 9 Unfamiliar 

6 7 8 9 LowQualitv' 

6 7 8 9 High Pnce 



146 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling) the scales below each. 

Telephones 




Dblike 12? 450789 Like 

Ugly 1 : 3 -i 5 ti 7 8 9 Beautiful 

Familiar 12 3 45 6789 Unfamiliar 

High Quality 12 3 4jb789 Low Quabty 

Low Price 123456789 High Price 




Dislike 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Like 

Ugly 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Beautiful 

Familiar 1 2 3 4 5 d 7 8 9 Unfamiliar 

HiehQuahty 1 2 3 4 5 6 - 8 9 Low Quality 

Low Price 123456789 High Price 




Dislike 12 3 4 5 6 

Ugly 12 3 4 5 6 

Familiar 12 3 4 5 6 

HighQuahty 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Low Price 12 3 4 5 6 



8 9 Like 

S 9 Bcauufui 

8 9 Unfamiliar 

8 9 Low Quality 

8 9 Hich Price 




Dislike 12 3 4 5 

Ugly 12 3 4 5 6 

Familiar 12 3 4 5 6 

HighQuahty 1 2 3 4 5 6 

LowPnce 12 3 4 5 6 



8 ^ Like 

8 9 Beautiful 

8 9 Unfamiliar 

8 9 Low Quahty 

S 9 High Price 



147 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling) the scales below each. 

Hair-drvers 





Dislike i 

Ugly 1 

Farmiiar 1 

HighQuslity 1 

Low Price 1 



- 5 b 7 8 9 Like 

- 5 6 7 8 9 Beautiful 

- 5 6 7 S 9 UnfaiTuliar 
4 5 6 7 8 9 Low Quality 
4 5 6 7 8 9 HighPnce 




Dislike 


: 




- 


5 


6 


' 


8 


9 


Like 


Dislike 


2 


;, 


4 


J 


6 


- 


X 





Like 


Ugiy 


2 




- 


5 


6 


' 


S 





Beautiful 


Ugly 


^ 


:, 


4 


5 


^ 


- 


i 


3 


BcauLllLli 


Famiiiar 


- 


- 


- 


5 





7 


8 


9 


Unfamiliar 


Familiar 


: 


3 


4 


5 


6 


- 


8 


Q 


Unfamiliar 


High Quality 


- 


3 


4 


5 


^'^ 


~ 


8 


9 


Low Quality 


High Quality 


: 


3 


4 


5 


6 


- 


8 


<J 


Low Quality 


Low Pnce 


^ 


_ 


" 


- 


6 




8 


9 


High Pnce 


Low Pnce 


- 




4 


■^ 


6 


^ 


j 


Q 


HichPnce 




Dislike 1 2 

Ugly 1 : 

Familiar 1 2 

High Quality 1 2 

Low Price 1 2 



4 5 6 " 8 9 Like 

4 5 6 7 3 9 Beautiful 

4 5 6 7 8 9 Unfamiiiai 

4 5 6 7 8 9 Low Quality 

4 5 6 7 8 9 HighPnce 



148 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling) the scales below each. 

Hair-dryers 




Dislike 123-156789 Like 

Ugh' 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Beauliful 

Familiar 123456789 Unfamiliar 

High Quality 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Low Quality 

LowPnce 123456789 High Price 




Dislike 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


S 


9 


Like 


Ugly 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


Beautiful 


Familiar 


2 


3 


J 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


Unfamiliar 



High Quality 123456789 Low Quality 
LowPnce 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 HighPnce 




Dislike 1 234567S9 Like 

Ugly 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Bcauuful 

Familiar 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unfamiliar 

High Quality 1 23456789 Low Quaiitv 

Low Price 1 234 5 6789 High Price 




Dislike 1 2 3 456789 Like 

Ugly ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Beautiful 

Familiar 123456780 Unfamiliar 

High Quality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Low Quality 

LowPnce 123456789 High Price 



149 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling) the scales below each. 

Hair-dry p.ri! 




Dislike 1 

Ugly 1 

Famibar 1 

High Quaiiry i 

Low Price 1 



3 4 5 6 

3 4 5 6 

3 4 5 6 

3 4 5 6 

3 4 5 6 



S « Like 

8 Beauuftil 

8 9 Unfamiliar 

8 9 Low Quaijrv 

8 9 High Pnce 








Dislike 

L^gly 

Familiar 

High Quail cy 

Low Pnce 



Di5iik.e 


1 


1 ^ 


5 


6 


7 


>i 





Like 


Dislike 


^■g^y 


- 


3 4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


Q 


Beauuful 


Ugly 


Fanimar 


2 


3 4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


- 


Unfamiliar 


Familiar 


High Quahuy 


- 


2 - 


5 


6 


7 


8 


5 


Low Quality 


High Quality 


Low Pnce 


: 


3 4 


5 


6 


7 


S 


9 


High Piice 


Low Pnce 



6 ~ 


8 


9 


Lie 


6 7 


8 


9 


Bcauuiul 


6 7 


8 


Q 


Unfamiliar 


6 " 


8 


9 


Low Quality 


6 7 


8 


9 


Hich Pnce 




6 




^ 


" 


Lm 


6 


- 


y 





BeauLilu] 


6 


- 


8 


Q 


Lni'amiliar 


6 


- 


8 





i-ow Quality 


6 


7 


s 


u 


Hich Pnce 



150 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling) the scales below each. 

Dressers Tchest of drawpy.:) 




DisUxc 


2 


3 4 


s 


6 


1 


8 


9 


Like 


Ugly 


- 


3 J 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


Beautiful 


Familiar 1 


-1 


:• J 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


Unfamiliar 


High Quail ry 


; 


? J 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


Low Quality 


Low Price 


- 


5 4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


High Price 




e: 



3 



e 



3 



Dislike 1 2 3 4 J s 7 S 9 Like 

Ugly 1 : 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 Bciautiful 

Familiar 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unfamiliar 

High Quality 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Low Quality 

Low Price I 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 High Pnce 



E 



3 



E 



^ 



Dislike 


: 


■' ^ 


^ 


6 


7 


S 


9 


Like 


Dislike 


2 


3 


- 


5 


t 


7 


(! 


9 


Like 


Ugly 


2 


■= ~ 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


Beautiful 


Ugiy 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


- 


^ 


9 


Beautiful 


Famiijar 


- 


-■ - 


5 


6 


7 


S 


9 


Unfamiliar 


Familiar 1 


n 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


S 


9 


Unfamiliar 


High Quality 


- 


3 4 


- 


6 


7 


s 


9 


Low Quality 


HighQuahty 1 


n 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


Low Quality 


Low Price 


- 


3 - 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


High Price 


Low Pnc« 1 


2 


3 


4 


3 


6 


7 


8 


9 


High Price 



151 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling) the scales below each. 

Dressers ("chest of drawers') 



p CT 



DishJce 1 : 3 J 5 

Ugly 1 2 3 4 5 

Familiar 12 3 4 5 

High Quality 12 3 4 5 



S 9 Like 

S 9 Bcauuful 

8 9 Uruamiliar 

8 9 Low Quality 



Low Price 



23456789 High Pncs 



Dislike 1 

Ugly 1 

Familiar 1 

Hiah Quality 1 

Low Price 1 



4 


5 


^ 


7 


8 


9 


Like 


- 


5 


& 


7 


8 


q 


Beautiful 


4 


5 





7 


8 





Unfamiliaj 


- 


5 


6 


- 


8 


9 


Low Quality 


4 


5 


s 


7 


8 


9 


High Price 




Dislike 1 2345o7S9 Like 

Ugiy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Beautiful 

Familiar 123456789 Unfamiliar 

High Quality 1 23456"89 Low Quality 

Low Price 12 3 456789 High Pnce 



Jt^ 


^ 












- 




J 




r 

r 






y 



Dislike 12 3 4 

Ugly 12 3 4 

Familiar 12 3 4 

High Quality 12 3 4 



6 7 S 9 Like 

6 7 S 9 Beautiful 

6 7 8 9 Unfamiliar 

6 7 8 9 Low Quality 



Low Price 1 



4 5 6 7 8 9 High Pnce 



152 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling) the scales below each. 

Dressers Cchest nf r^r^^x,^J^^ 




Dislike 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Like 

Ugiy 123456789 Beautiful 

Familiar 123456789 UnfamUiar 

HighQualjty 12 3 456789 Low Qualiry 

UwPnce 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 High Price 




Dislike 12 3 4 5 6 

Ugly 12 3 4 5 5 

Familiar 1 2 3 4 5 6 

High Quality 12 3 4 5 6 

Low Pnce 12 3 4 5 6 



8 9 Like 

8 9 Beautiful 

8 9 Unfamiliar 

S 9 Low Quality 

8 9 High Price 




Dislike 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 Like 

'-'«'y 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Beautiful 

FamiUar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 UTifamiiiar 

High Quality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 Low Quality 

LowPrice 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 High Pnce 




Dislike 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ^ 9 Like 

•Jg'y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 Beautiful 

Familiar I 2 3 4 5 6 ^ s 9 Umamiliai 

High Quality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 Low Qualitv 

Low Pnce 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 High Pnce 



153 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling) the scales below each. 

Clocks 




Diihxc 1 

Ufiy 1 

Familiar ! 

Hich Quality I 

Low Pncc 1 



' 


6 


" 


^ 


Q 


Like 


5 


5 


-? 


S 


9 


Beautiful 


5 


6 


-7 


s 


9 


Unfamiliar 


5 


6 


7 


s 





Low Quaiiiy 


5 


6 


7 


S 


9 


High Pncc 





Dislike 1 

Lgiy 1 

Familiar 1 

Hi^ Qualiiy 1 

Low Pnce 1 



;? 4 5 6 7 8 « Luce 

;3J5678Q Bciuiiful 

;34567i!q Umamiliar 

;?J567g9 Low Quality 

- ? -1 5 6 7 8 Q HiphPnci 




Duliice 


- 


- 


- 


5 


6 


' 


V 


9 


Like 


Dislixe 


Z 


3 


- 


i 


6 


7 


8 


Q 


Like 


Ugly 


- 


7 


- 


5 


6 


- 


8 


9 


Beautiful 


Ugiy 


2 


J 


•i 


^ 


6 


7 


8 





Beautiful 


Familiar 


- 


3 


- 


5 


6 


- 


\ 


9 


Unfamiliar 


FaiTuiiar 1 


2 


;, 


4 


i 


6 


7 


8 





Uniamiiiar 


HiEh Quality 


- 


-' 


- 


<; 


6 


^ 


s 


9 


Low Quality 


High Quality ! 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


-! 


8 


9 


Low Quality 


Low Frice 


- 


'i 


- 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


High Pnce 


Low Pnce ' 


; 


3 


4 


^ 


6 


7 


8 


Q 


Hi ph Pnce 



154 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling) the scales below each. 

Clocks 




Dislike 1 : :■ - 5 6 7 8 Uj;e 

Ugly 1 : :■ -: 5 6 7 8 9 Beauuful 

Pamihar 1 2 3 - 5 6 7 8 9 Unfamiluir 

High Qiuiity 1 :" 456789 Uiw Ou»lity 

l-owPn« i:3J56789 High Pnce 




Dislike 12 3 4 5 6 

Ugly 12 3 4 5 6 

Funilur 12 3 4 5 6 

High Quality 12 3 4 5 6 

Low Pnce 12 3 4 5 6 



S 9 Uke 

8 9 Bc«uuful 

8 UnfuniJur 

8 9 Law Quality 

8 High Price 





Dislike 

Ugly 

Famiiiar 

High Quail ry 

Low Pnce 



5 6 ■' 8 9 Like 

5 6 7 8 9 Btumuful 

5 6 7 8 9 Unlanuiiflr 

5 6 7 8 9 Low Quality 

5 6 7 8 9 High Pnce 



Dislike 12 3 4 5 6 

Ugly 12 3 4 5 6 

Famiiiar 12 3 4 5c 

High Quality 12 3 4 5 6 

Low Pnce 1 2 3 4 5 6 



8 9 Like 

S 9 Beaiitiftii 

8 9 Urfamiiiar 

i 9 Low Quahty 

8 9 High Pnce 



155 



Please indicate your reaction to the appearance of the proposed 
products by marking (circling) the scales below each. 

Cloclfs: 




Dislike lIJ-ajt^gQ Like 

Ugly 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Be*utiful 

FamiuHT 1:3456789 Unfaimluff 

HighQuibry 1 23456789 Low Qumbtv' 

LowPnce 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 High Pncc 




Dislike 1 23456789 Like 

Ugiy 12 3 456789 Beautiful 

Fsrailiar 1234567S9 Unfimilmr 

High Quality 123456789 Low Quality 

LowPnce 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 High Price 




Diilike 1 

Ugly I 

FamiUar 1 

High Quabiy I 

Low Price 1 * 



; 3 J 5 6 7 8 9 Lj-c 

-34 5 6789 Beautiful 

-3456789 Umamiiiar 

-3456789 Low Quality 

"3^56789 HiphPncc 



N 1 i 



' 4 ^ 



Dislike 1 

Ugly 1 

Familiar 1 

High Quality 1 

Low Pnce 1 



3 4 5 6 

3 4 5 6 

3 4 5 6 

3 4 5 6 

3 4 5 6 



S 9 Like 

s 9 Beautiful 

8 9 Unfamiliar 

8 9 Low Quality 

8 9 High Pncc 



156 



APPENDIX C 
DIAGRAM OF EXPERIMENT 1 



M 








_o 


^ 


fS 


?^ 


O 








t-< 








OJ 










^ 


^ 


^ 


Q 








Hair- 
dryer 




^ 


^ 


. 0) 








Tele 
phon 


^ 


^ 


J^ 

m 


efrig- 
rator 








^ 


J3 

CO 


^ 


P5 <" 








a, 








B 


M 

H 


fS 


^ 


hJ 








"il 


^ 


^ 


^ 


E ^ 








a> 
















^3 


^ 






(S 








s 








hroo 
cale 


X 

m 


pi; 


F^ 


^^ 








m 










1—1 


(M 


CO 




c 


c 


c 




o 


o 


o 














to 


m 




fH 


;h 


u 




tD 


a; 


CD 




> 


> 


> 




II II II 



^>^ 



CO H 



-(J 
o 

o 

Cm 






I 



■*-» 
0) 
EQ 

09 

s 

-M 

-u 
o 

■rH 

X, 



o 




o 



158 



APPENDIX D 
DIAGRAM OF EXPERIMENT 2 





P« 














= 




u 


















o 




1 
1 


J;;, 




+ 


+ 






u 


















Qi 


















IB 
CO 




+ 


--j^ 




+ 


^ 






S 






■-1^ 




+ 


+ 






P 


















.• ^ 


















M Oi 


















II 




_+ 


+ 




•i- 


+ 

1 




ea 


















E^ 


, 0) 
















z; 


Tele 
phon 




+ 


1 




1 


-^ 




^« 


Ar (- 
















LED- 
EXPE 


Refrij 
erato 




1 


1 




^ 






^ 


S 

cd 




"+ 


1 






^ 




9 


CO X 
















^ 


fa '^ 




+^ 


^ 




w 


+ 




Q 




















01 


















-t-i 


















&i 




+ 
+ 


^ 




+ 


T 






« 


















« 




















<l> 




0) 


a) 













■« 




"3 


'3 




'3 








d 


i-H 


«c. 




CO 


«^ 








o 


C! 


o S 


o 


fi 


o fl 








■U 


o 


'■^ 2 




o 


■43 








CO 

0) 


£ 

O 


3 0) 


CD 
CD 


CO 


3 CD 




L 




cy> 


o'> 


©-> 


<y> 





160 



APPENDIX E 
PRODUCT DESCRIPTIONS USED IN EXPERIMENT 3 



APPENDIX E 
PRODUCT DESCRIPTIONS FOR EXPERIMENT 3 



" Strong " 



Bathroom Scales: 
*5 Year Warranty 
*Maximuin Weight 330 lbs. 
*Easy to Read Dial 
*5 lbs. 

TV Remote Control 
*Controls 8 devices (TV, VCR, 

Cable, CD, Satellite, and 3 

auxiliaries) 
*Performs all functions of the 

original remote control 
*0n screen Programming Keys 
*Uses 4 AAA Batteries 

Flashlight: 
*Adjustable Beam (from spot to 
flood) 

*Lifetime Warranty 
*Uses 2-D Batteries 
*Waterproof 

Lamp: 

*2 way switch (high/low) 
*Uses up to 100 watt bulb 
*Flexible Gooseneck 
*Weighted (desktop base) 

Refrigerator: 
*21.6 cu. ft. 

*Freezer has Removable shelf 
*Frostless 
*Energy Efficient 
*6 Storage compartments 
*2 Door Shelves 



"Weak" 



Bathroom Scales: 
*3 Year Warranty 
^Maximum Weight 320 lbs. 
*Easy to Read Dial 
*5 lbs. 

TV Remote Control: 
^Controls 6 devices (TV, VCR, 
Cable, CD, and 2 axixiharies) 
^Performs all functions of the 
original remote control 
*0n screen Programming Keys 
*Uses 4 AAA Batteries 



Flashlight: 
*Dual Reflector System 
*3 Year Warranty 
*Uses 2-D Batteries 
*Waterproof 



Lamp: 
*Rotary on/off switch 
*Uses up to 100 watt bulb 
*Flexible Gooseneck 
♦Weighted (desktop base) 

Refrigerator: 
*20 cu. ft. 
*Frostless 
♦Energy Efficient 
♦6 Storage compartments 
*2 Door Shelves 



162 



163 



APPENDIX E - continued 



" Strong " 



Telephone: 
*10 Number Memory 
^Receiver and Ringer volume 
control 

*Mute and Redial Buttons 
*3 lbs. 

Hair dryer: 
* 1,600 watts 

*2 speeds and 3 heat settings 
*Dual Voltage 
*Super-quiet operation 
*2 lbs. 

Dresser: 
*2 Spacious Drawers 
*Drawers have steel slides with 

ball bearings for smooth 

operation 

^Durable chip-resistant finish 
*Hardwood Back 

Clock: 
*Illuminated Dial (2 brightness 
settings) 
*Snooze Button 
*Adjustable soft/loud Alarm 
*9 V Battery Backup 



"Weak" 



Telephone: 
*6 Number Memory 
*Receiver and Ringer volume 
control 

*Mute and Redial 
*3 lbs. 

Hair dryer: 
* 1,500 watts 

*2 speeds and 2 heat settings 
*Dual Voltage 
*Super-quiet operation 
*2 lbs. 

Dresser: 
*2 Spacious Drawers 
*Metal on wood Drawer guide 
♦Durable chip resistant finish 
*Hardwood Back 



Clock: 
*Illmninated Dial 
♦Snooze Button 
♦Adjustable soft/loud Alarm 
♦9 V Battery Backup 



REFERENCE LIST 

Ajzen, Icek (1989), "Attitude Structure and Behavior," in Attitude Stru.t.rP 
and Function , eds. Anthony R. Pratkanis, Steven J. Breckler, and 
Anthony G. Greenwald, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 
rublisners, pp. 241-274. 

Auld, Frank (1981), "A Theory Deriving Preference from Conflict," in Advances 
m Intrinsic Motivation and AesthPtirs , ed. Hy I. Day, New York- Plenum 
Press, pp. 203-224. 

Bell, Stephen S., Morris B. Holbrook, and Michael R. Solomon (1991) 
Combining Esthetic and Social Value to Explain Preferences for 
l^^ A ^J r ^'^^ ^^^ Incorporation of PersonaHty and Ensemble 
^™^*S' The Journal of Social Beh avior and Personali ty Vol 6 No 6 
pp. 243-273^ ^ ■ ' ' 

Berkowitz, Marvin (1987), "The Influence of Shape on Product Preferences " 
Advances in Consumer Research. Vol. 14, p. 559. 

Berlyne, D^E. (1970), "Novelty, Complexity, and Hedonic Value," Perception 
and Psvchophvsics . Vol. 8, pp. 279-286. 

Berlyne, D. E. (1971), Aesthetics and Psvchologv. New York- ApDleton- 
Century-Crofts. " ^ 

Berlyne, D.E. (1974), Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics . New York- 
John Wiley and Sons. 

Bornstein, Marc H., Kay Ferdinandsen, and Charles G. Gross (1981) 
"Perception of Symmetry in Infancy," Developmental Psvrhn lnp^r' 
Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 82-86. 

Carruthers, Margaret (1970), "Color-Form Dominance and Memory for Color " 
M. A. thesis, Psychology Dept., University of Glasgow. 

Ching Francis D. K. (1979), Architecture: Form. Space, and OrHpr New York- 
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. 



164 



165 



Cohen, J (1977), Statistical Power Analvsi. fnr the Beh^vi-nr.l Rri.r..^. (Rev 
ed.), New York: Academic Press, 1977\ 

Dickson, Peter R and James L. Ginter (1987), "Market Segmentation, Product 
Differentiation, and Marketing Strategy," Journal of M^rk^f in pr (April), 
pp. i-lU. 

Edwards, Kari (1990) "The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Attitude 
Fonnation and Change," Journal of Pers onality and Rnr-Jal Psvcholnpv 

Eisenman, R. (1968), "Novelty Ratings of Simple and Complex Shapes " 
Journal of General Psychology. 78, pp. 275-278. ' 

Garvin, David A. (1984), "What Does "Product Quahty" Really Mean*?" Sloan 
Manageme nt Review. (Fall), pp. 25-43. 

Glass, Lewis A. and Keith J. Holyoak (1986), Cognition. Second ed.. New York 
N.Y.: Random House. ' 

Goldstone, Robert L., Douglas L. Medin, and Dedre Centner (1991) "Relational 
Similarity and the Nonindependence of Features in' Similarity 
Judgements," Cognitive Psychology . Vol. 23, pp. 222-262. 

Gorski, D. (1987), The Cognitiv e Condition of Dp«i> ed. Brian Zaff 
Symposium Proceedings (March) 1987. 

Gruenwald, George (1985), New Product Development: What Really Works 
Chicago, IL: Grain Books! ' ' 

Hartmann, George W. (1935), Gestalt Psychology: A Survey of Facts anH 
Principles. New York: The Ronald Press Company. 

Holbrook, Morris B. (1981), "Introduction: The Esthetic Imperative in 
Consumer Research," in Symbolic Consumer Behavior, eds. Elizabeth C 
Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for 
Consumer Research, pp. 36-37. 

Holbrook, Morris and EHzabeth Hirschman (1982), "The Experiential Aspects 
of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feehngs, and Fun," Journal of 
Consumer Research . Vol. 9 (2), pp. 132-140. ' 



166 



Holbrook Morris B. and Robert B. Zirlin (1985), "Artistic Creation, Artworks 
and Aesthetic Appreciation: Some Philosophical Contributions to Non- 
profit Marketing, Advances in Nonprofit M^rkpt.inp- Vol. 1, pp. 1-54. 

Holt, S. (1985), "Design, the Ninth Principle of Excellence: The Product Half 
ot the Business Equation," Innovation . (Fall), pp. 2-4. 

Huber, Joel, and Morris B. Holbrook (1981), "The Use of Real Versus Artificial 
Stimuli m Research on Visual Esthetic Judgements," in Symbohc 
Consumer Behavior , eds. Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris B 
Holbrook, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 60-68." 

Hutcheson, F. (1725), An In quiry into the Original of Oi, .r Ideas of Re.ntv .nH 
Virtue. London: Darby. ~ 

Hutchinson, J Wesley and Joseph W. Alba (1991), "Ignoring Irrelevant 
Information: Situational Determinants of Consumer Learning," Journal 
of Consumer Rese^rfh Vol. 18, (December), pp. 325-345. 

Johnson Mark (1987), The Bodv in the M^nH Chicago: The University of 
Chicago Press. 

Katz, David (1950), Gestalt Psvcholo^ New York: The Ronald Press 
Company. 

Keppel, Geoggrey (1991), Design and Analy sis: A Reaearr.her's Handbook 3rd 
ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 

Koffka, K (1935), Principles of Gestalt Psvcholopv New York: Harcourt, Brace 
and Company. 

Kohler, Wolfgang (1929), Gestalt Psvcho logy: An Introduction to New Cnnrpp f. 
m Modern Psycholoffy, New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation 
(1947). 

Kotler Philip and G. Alexander Rath (1984), "Design: A Powerful But 
Neglected Strategic Tool," The Journal o f Busines.s Str^tpcxy Vol 5 
(Fall), pp. 16-21. ^' 

Kunst-Wilson, W. R. and R. B. Zajonc (1980), "Affective Discrimination of 
btimuh That Cannot Be Recognized," Science . Vol. 207, pp. 557-558. 



167 

Landy, David and Harold Sigall (1974), "Beauty Is Talent: Task Evaluation as 
a Function of the Performer's Physical Attractiveness," Journal of 
Personaht v and Social Psychology . Vol. 29, pp. 299-304. 

Langlois, Judith H. and Lori A. Roggman (1990), "Attractive Faces Are Only 
Average," Psvchologic al Science. Vol. 1, No. 2, March, pp. 115-121. 

Lauer, David A. (1979), Design Basics. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and 
Winston. 

Lennon, Sharron J. (1990), "Effects of Clothing Attractiveness on Perceptions," 
Home Eco nomics Research Journal. Vol. 18, pp. 303-310. 

Lewalski, Z. (1988), Products Esthetics: An Interpretation for Designers. 
Carson City, New York: Design and Development Engineering Press. ' 

Lewicki, Pawel (1986), Nonconscious Social Information Processing. New York: 
Academic Press. 

Loken, Barbara and James Ward (1990), "Alternative Approaches to 
Understanding the Determinants of Typicahty," Journal of Consumer 
Research. Vol. 17, pp. 111-126. 

Lorenz, Christopher (1986), The Design Dimension. New York, NY: Basil 
Blackwell Inc. 

Handler, George (1982), "The Structure of Value: Accounting for Taste," in 
Affect and Cognition: The 17th Annual Carnegie Symp osium, eds 
Margaret S. Clark and Susan T. Fiske, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence 
Erlbaum Associates, pp. 3-36. 

Meyers-Levy, Joan and Alice M. Tybout (1989), "Schema Congruity as a Basis 
for Product Evaluation," Journal for Consumer Research . Vol 16 (June) 
pp. 39-54. 

Monroe, Kent B. (1973), "Buyers' Subjective Perceptions of Price," Journal of 
Marketing Research . Vol. 8, February, pp. 70-80. 

MothersiU, Mary (1989), "Aesthetic Laws, Principles and Properties: A 
Response to Eddy Zemach," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 
Vol. 47, No. 1 (Winter), pp. 77-82. 



168 

Nedungadi Prakash and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1985), "The Prototypicahty of 
Brands: Relationships with Brand Awareness, Preference and Usa^e " 
"; Advances m Consumer Research , eds. Ehzabeth C. Hirschman and 
Morns Holbrook, Provo UT: Association for Consumer Research, Vol. 
12, pp. 498-503. 

Nisbett Richard E. and Timothy DeCamp Wilson (1977), "Tening More Than 
We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes," Psychological 
Review , Vol. 84 (May), pp. 231-259. — 

Nunnally, Jum C. (1981), "Explorations of Exploration," in Advances in 
Intrinsic Motivation and Aesthpf.Tr>. ed., Hy I. Day, New York- Plenum 
Press, pp. 87-130. 

Nussbaum, Bruce (1991), "Winners: The Best Product Designs of the Year " in 
Business Week. June 17, 1991, pp. 62-80. 

Oakley Mark (1990), "Design and Design Management," in Design 
Management: A Handbo ok of Issues and Methods, ed Mark Oaklev 
Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell Inc., pp. 3-14. 

Olson, Jerry C. (1981), "What is an Esthetic Response?" Svmbohc Consnmpr 
Behavior , eds. Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook, Ann 
Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 71-74. 

Patzer, G. L. (1985), The Phvsical Attractiveness Phenomena. New York- 
Plenum Press. 

Pickford, R. W. (1972), Psvchology and Visual Aesthetir.s London: Hutchinson 
Educational Ltd., (Distributed in the U. S. by Crane, Russak and Co 
Inc., New York, N. Y.). 

Pleydell-Pearce, A.G. (1970), "Objectivity and Value in the Judgements of 
Aesthetics," The British Journal of Aesthetics. Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 25-38. 

Pye, David (1978), The Nature and Aesthetics of Design. New York: Van 
Nostrand Reinhold Company. 

Reed, J. D. (1990), "The New Shape of Sound," in Time. August 27, 1990, p. 58. 

Rosch, E. (1978), "Principles of Categorization," in E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd 
(Eds.), Cognition and C ategorization . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 27-47. 



169 

Segall, Marshall H. (1976), "Visual Art: Some Perspectives from Cross-Cultural 
Psychology," m Beyond Aest hetics: Investigations into the Nature of 
Visual Art, ed. Don Brothwell, Thames and Hudson: London, 1976. 

Sproles^ George B. (1981), "Analyzing Fashion Life Cycles - Principles and 
Perspectives," Journal of Marketing . Vol. 45 (Fall), pp. 116-124. 

Urban Glen L. and John R. Hauser (1993), Design and Marketing of New 
Products, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 

Veryzer, Robert W. (1993), "Aesthetic Response and the Influence of Design 
Principles on Product Preferences," in Advances in Consumer Research. 
eds., Leigh McAlister and Michael L. Rothschild, Prove, UT: Association 
of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, pp. 224-228. 

Wallendorf, Melanie (1980), "The Formation of Aesthetic Criteria Through 
Social Structures and Social Institutions," in Advances in Consumer 
Research, ed., Jeny C. Olson, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer 
Research, Vol. 7, pp. 3-6. 

Whitney, Danial E. (1988), "Manufacturing by Design," Harvard Business 
Review. (July-August), pp.83-90. 

Wilkie, WilHam L. (1990), Consumer Behavior. 2nd ed.. New York: John Wiley 
and Sons. 

Wohlwill, Joachim F. (1981), 'A Conceptual Analysis of Exploratory Behavior: 
The "Specific-Diverse" Distinction Revisited,' in Advances in Intrinsic 
Motivation and Aesthetics, ed. Hy I. Day, New York: Plenum Press pp 
341-364. ' ^^' 

Winer, B. J., Donald R. Brown, and Kenneth M. Michels (1991), Statistical 
Principles in Experime ntal Design . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc. 

Woll, Stanley and Arthur Graesser (1982), "Memory Discrimination for 
Information typical and Atypical of Person Schemata," Social Co gnition 
Vol. 1, No. 42, pp. 287-310. ' 

Zaff, Brian S. (1987), The Cognitive Condition of Design , ed. Brian S. Zaff, 
Sjrmposium Proceedings (March), 1987. 

Zajonc, R. B. (1980), "Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences," 
American Psychologist. 35, pp. 151-175. 



170 



Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1988), "Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and 
Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence," Journal of 
Marketinsf. Vol. 52, pp. 2-22. ' 



BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 

Robert Whitman Veryzer, Jr. is the third of four sons bom to Robert and 
Marion Veryzer. He attended Birmingham Seaholm High School in 
Birmingham, Michigan. From 1979 to 1983 Robert attended Ohvet College 
where he was the recipient of the Olivet College Presidential Scholarship and 
was graduated with honors. After working for a year for a small 
manufacturing company, he left to pursue a Master of Business Administration 
degree in marketing at Michigan State University. In addition to his studies, 
Robert worked for the State of Michigan as a marketing assistant and later for 
General Motors Corporation-Oldsmobile Product Planning Department as a 
product research analyst. After completing his M. B. A. degree, he spent one 
semester conducting an independent research project that involved examining 
the role of product design in business. Robert then went to wcrk for General 
Foods Corporation as an assistant product manager. In the Fall of 1989, he 
entered the Ph.D. program in marketing at the University of Florida. Robert 
has accepted an offer to join the faculty of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. 



171 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms 
to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in 
scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of ^optor^f I^loaoF^y. 




J/WesleyHutc)toson, Chairman 
^ssociate ^tofessor of Marketing 

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms 
to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in 
scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philo^oph^' 



Richard J. Lutz 
Professor of Marlieting 




I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms 
to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fuUy adequate, in 
scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 

c:^2^ - /^<^ ^-^ ^ 

Christopher J^niszewski 
Associate Professor of Marketing 

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms 
to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in 
scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 



\iUn 




David G. Mick 

Assistant Professor of Marketinsr 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms 
to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in 
scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 




^y^onaihaxi Hamilton 

Associate Professor of Economics 

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the 
Department of Marketing in the College of Business Administration and to the 
Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements 
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 

August, 1993 



Dean, Graduate School